Brewers Top 10 Prospects -- Latest: Sickels Re-Visists His Pre-Season Top 20

[ramssuperbowl99]

One thing about Khris Davis: We can talk about him being blocked in left field by Ryan Braun, but that shouldn't affect his ranking at all, at least in my mind.

No it doesn't, and I didn't mean to come off as thinking it did. But how the Brewers have treated Davis and being so slow to promote him in spite of plenty of other players should tell you what they think about him.

Part of the reason Alcides Escobar was so highly regarded was because he was sent to Helena as a 17 year old. Part of the reason we love Tyler Thornburg on here is because the Brewers have shown similar excitement through comments or promotions. There is a reason Khris Davis isn't getting that same love.

[And That]

And not sure why you "aren't big on frame"

The top three ISOs in the major leagues - Bautista, Berkmann, Granderson - are all 6'1 or under. Ryan Braun is 6'1. Rickie Weeks and Prince Fielder are both well under 6 feet. Much like tall pitchers, if you get too fixated on tall hitters, you're gonna miss perfectly good players with the same tools. Taller players also tend to have longer, slower swings. I'm not big on frame.

 

Further, not sure why you don't think Morris has a better hit tool.

Or a better arm (though it's not the most pivotal thing from a 1B).

Neither is a pure hitter and neither have great bat speed. They both project to hit somewhere under .290 at the big league level. They're about even in my book. Morris can't play anywhere but 1B, so his arm strength is basically irrelevant.

 

I'd feel much more comfortable projecting Morris' discipline (and

therefore his in game power) to improve than projecting Davis' overall

skillset to improve.

Morris has the higher ceiling, without a doubt. He has two big things going against him: he can't play defense in the OF and he has so far to go with toning down his aggressiveness that it is a true hindrance to his value. He's a 22.5 year old 3-year D1 starter in A ball. He flat-out should have more than 14 walks, or certainly more than a .314 OBP, in A-ball. I see both of them as part-time MLB players right now, and like I said, I'll always take the guy with the better idea at the plate.

 

But how the Brewers have treated Davis and being so slow to promote him

in spite of plenty of other players should tell you what they think

about him.

I don't think they think he's a MLB-regular prospect, which he probably isn't. I just don't think Morris is, either.

[nate82]

Umm... Where's Peralta?

 

 

I'm not a big fan of Peralta.

[CheezWizHed]

... and neither have great bat speed.

 

Question: Where do you find information like this after a player is drafted? Is it just a matter of reading the right information or from watching the players in person? Not being privy to that type if information is what forces me (out of necessity) to be more production focused.

 

Hmmm... I wonder if Moneyball started out of a bunch of guys on an internet forum. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[And That]

Question: Where do you find information like this after a player is drafted?

It's relatively easy to find scouting reports and talk to people who have seen them play. And then there's MiLB.tv.

[And That]

I'm not a big fan of Peralta.

I gotta ask... why?

[yoshii8]

1. Wily Peralta - He is having a great AA season at age 22, and his strikeout and walk rates have improved since last season. He also has been clocked as high as 98 mph recently, very exciting arm. I think he could be a possible #2 starter.

 

2. Tyler Thornburg - He is only a little bit older than Peralta, and has dominated at every level so far, can't wait to see what he does in Huntsville. He seems to have a great attitude w/ a lot of confidence, I could see him being a very good starter as soon as 2013.

 

3. Taylor Green - I think OPS'ing over .950 as a 24 year old in his first taste of AAA, while splitting time between 2B and 3B, makes him quite the prospect. I'm glad he seems to finally be healthy and becoming the player we hoped he would become a couple seasons ago. Hopefully we have our 3b of the future in Green.

 

4. Caleb Gindl - He has moved up the ladder every season, and has had an OPS over .800 at every level except Hunstville (.758 OPS). Seems like he will at least become a very good 4th outfielder, I hope even more. He is having a very good season as a 22 year old in AAA.

 

5. Kyle Heckathorn - Hasn't dominated at all, but has been consistently pretty good since being drafted. I hope he continues to do well in Huntsville.

 

6. Yadiel Rivera - This may be high on him, but I've heard he has the tools to be a great defensive SS, and the way he's been hitting in Helena has been awesome to follow.

 

7. Cody Scarpetta - I hoped this might be his break out season, but he has been very inconsistent in AA. Hopefully he finishes the season strong in Huntsville, I still think he has a good chance to become a good MLB pitcher.

 

8. Nic Bucci - I've always liked what I've heard about his attitude, and it's awesome to hear his velocity is up this season. He's been good since being drafted, hopefully he continues to be a good in AA next season, or at the end of this season.

 

9. Khris Davis - Has been outstanding in Brevard County this season, and has shown a lot of power. Congrats on finally getting called up to AA, hopefully he keeps raking in Huntsville.

 

10. Nick Ramirez - He has crushed the ball so far in Helena, after being the Brewers 4th round pick this season. I'm not big on Hawn or Morris, and like what I've seen and heard about Ramirez. It's probably way too early to make him top 10, but I like the fact that he was a good college pitcher and now has the chance to only focus on the hitting and fielding part.

[ramssuperbowl99]

And yes, keep posting.

 

The next Power 50 is about ten days away, so this will stoke the pre-conversation.

Random question - will this Power 50 include unsigned draft picks?

[Mass Haas]

And yes, keep posting.

 

The next Power 50 is about ten days away, so this will stoke the pre-conversation.

Random question - will this Power 50 include unsigned draft picks?

 

No, never has, never will. You want a Power 50 spot? Then sign with the organization...

[And That]

If Jungmann, Bradley and Lopez were all signed right now, my top ten would be something like:

 

1. Peralta

2. Bradley

3. Thornburg

4. Jungmann

5. Lopez

6. Scarpetta

7. Schafer

8. Gagnon

9. Green

10. Bucci

[narwhalattack]

Top 10 with draft picks:

 

1. Wily Peralta-hitting 98, striking people out, and bringing the walks down. A lot to like about him.

2. Taylor Jungmann- polished stuff with workhorse body. Won't be an ace, but will chew up innings and won't need much time in the minors.

3. Jed Bradley- fastball velocity is very good as a lefty, with a plus changeup. Still needs to find consistency with the slider. With the stuff as is, he's a mid-rotation starter. If he can find consistency with his slider ( which flashes plus) he can become a top of the rotation starter.

4. Tyler Thornburg- dominating in the lower minors and the stuff to back it up. Walks are starting to increase but still dominating.

5. Jorge Lopez- highest upside of the group. tons of projection and is already hitting the low-90s. He has a plus curveball and is working on a curveball. Fastball velo could sit low-90s to mid-90s when he fills out.

6. Yadiel Rivera- has tools to stick at SS and is hitting very well.

7. Khris Davis- great bat and is finally promoted to AA

8. Nick Ramirez- hitting away left and right and deserves a promotion at this point.

9. D'vo Richardson- great tools, but needs to pull it all together. High ceiling

10. Michael Reed- I don't have much info on him, but from a scouting report I read here, it seems that he has good tools but is pretty inconsistent and raw. I'm excited to see what he can do if he puts things together.

[TooLiveBrew]

Ok, I'll finally try my hand at this, Jungmann/Bradley/Lopez included.

 

1. Wily Peralta

2. Tyler Thornburg

3. Jed Bradley

4. Taylor Jungmann

5. Jorge Lopez

6. Taylor Green

7. Khris Davis

8. Caleb Gindl

9. Kyle Heckathorn

10. Nick Bucci

 

That's probably not very good, given that I've literally never seen any of these players in person save Khris Davis a handful of times last season with the T-Rats.

 

Others considered (no particular order): Orlando Arcia, Santo Manzanillo, Ruben Ozuna, Osmel Perez, Yadiel Rivera, D'Vontrey Richardson, Kentrail Davis, Hunter Morris, Cody Scarpetta, Drew Gagnon, Scooter Gennett, Danny Keller, David Goforth, Nick Ramirez, Michael Reed, Max Walla, probably others I didn't consider but should've...

 

Random comments: From the "others" list, I really like Yadiel Rivera. Really like Manzanillo's velocity & hope he's a legit bullpen option sometime soon. It was hard for me to keep Orlando Arcia, Ruben Ozuna, & Osmel Perez off the top 10, but apparently I'm racist like Ken Macha. I also like Max Walla, just based on the numerous descriptions of his raw bat speed & physical tools -- good to see him starting to show some results in Helena. I still like Kentrail Davis's swing, but it's confusing why his results haven't been better yet. I'm hopeful on D'Vo, but he's still such a work in progress.

 

The only guy I really have a hard time hopping on the bandwagon for is Gennett. He's just so, so small. I hope he proves me/doubters wrong, and he's definitely been hitting of late with Brevard County.

[LouisEly]

1) Peralta

2) Bradley

3) Thornburg

4) Jungmann

5) Schafer

6) Green

7) Lopez

8) Scarpetta

9) Heckathorn

10) Fiers

[YoungGeezy]

See I hate including guys in top 10 before they even touch the field. I dont think because they were pick at this spot or this spot they auto jump to #1 or so on. Id like them to have a lil success before I throw them up as a top prospect. Really all it does is lead to disappointment and is down from that spot. Example Arnett. Id take a Peralta, Thorny, Heckathorn, Scarpetta anyday of the week because I know what they offer as a prospect, they have track records and have proved themselves. Jungmann and Bradley have proved nothing outside of that they have "potential" to be good. Next May if they are looking good ill start to think bout it but they have to show something first. Nothing should be given without earning and them holding out has hurt them.

[ramssuperbowl99]

See I hate including guys in top 10 before they even touch the field. I dont think because they were pick at this spot or this spot they auto jump to #1 or so on. Id like them to have a lil success before I throw them up as a top prospect. Really all it does is lead to disappointment and is down from that spot. Example Arnett. Id take a Peralta, Thorny, Heckathorn, Scarpetta anyday of the week because I know what they offer as a prospect, they have track records and have proved themselves. Jungmann and Bradley have proved nothing outside of that they have "potential" to be good. Next May if they are looking good ill start to think bout it but they have to show something first. Nothing should be given without earning and them holding out has hurt them.

So you would have rather had Wily Peralta in 2009 than Stephen Strasburg because Strasburg was just "potential to be good"?

If the Pirates said they would trade the rights to Gerrit Cole for Cody Scarpetta (I'm aware this is illegal, but hypothetically) and I was Doug Melvin I'd probably have an aneurysm saying yes so quickly.

 

[TheCrew07]

Isn't this just a matter of preference? Comparing Strasburg to Jungmann/Bradley isn't even fair, the Brewers haven't drafted that high in years and won't for at least the next 2 drafts. Strasburg was a once in every 10 years kind of college talent, Jungmann and Bradley aren't on that level, few players are. Any high school player is a good 3 years away from contributing at MLB, much can happen in 3 years, it's a long road.

 

You prefer to rate players mostly on ceiling which is fine, and obviously most everyone prefers the more talented player if given the option, but the ceiling of the players isn't firm, it's open to debate. I'm not anywhere as high on players like Jungmann and Scarpetta as many of the people around here, I see their ceiling a notch or 2 below what others see. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but I have no problem with people wanting prospects to earn their way into the top 10 unless they are so obviously dominant and polished when they are drafted that there's no doubt they will be MLB players in the very near future, like a Strasburg. After all, what position player has a higher ceiling than D'Vo? If we're mostly rating on talent/ceiling then he should probably be in everyone's top 10.

 

Who's ultimately a better prospect? Someone 17 years old performing very well in Helena or a just drafted 21 year old performing just as well at the same level? I'd argue the 17 year old nearly every time because he has a realistic chance of being in MLB by the time he's 22, even moving at a conservative pace. Obviously if you get a special college talent like Braun he's going to be in MLB by age 22 or 23 and also has a very high ceiling, but again we aren't talking about that level of college talent here. Some had Bradley rated that high, but while he's acending as a player his body of college work isn't exactly awe inspiring either.

 

I also think the track record of the scouting director has to factor in, Colby talked quite a bit about the Brewers doing well developing talent as a reason why the Brewer system is underrated over the winter, but the people who made and fought for the those picks in many cases are no longer with the organization. They are in Seattle, Houston, etc... We don't have the same people evaluating the talent and the current scouting dept has quite a bit to prove. I do like Seid, but he's quickly running out of time, this most recent draft class must hit the ground running or his job will be in jeopardy, and rightly so.

 

I just don't how any subjective rating measure is better than another, ultimately the players will slot themselves and prove their worth. Personally I enjoy reading lists that are very dissimilar from my own with comments written in as I might have overlooked a player who's going through a tough stretch, I also enjoy reading other people's perspectives on players.

[ramssuperbowl99]

Isn't this just a matter of preference? Comparing Strasburg to Jungmann/Bradley isn't even fair, the Brewers haven't drafted that high in years and won't for at least the next 2 drafts. Strasburg was a once in every 10 years kind of college talent, Jungmann and Bradley aren't on that level, few players are. Any high school player is a good 3 years away from contributing at MLB, much can happen in 3 years, it's a long road.

 

You prefer to rate players mostly on ceiling which is fine, and obviously most everyone prefers the more talented player if given the option, but the ceiling of the players isn't firm, it's open to debate. I'm not anywhere as high on players like Jungmann and Scarpetta as many of the people around here, I see their ceiling a notch or 2 below what others see. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but I have no problem with people wanting prospects to earn their way into the top 10 unless they are so obviously dominant and polished when they are drafted that there's no doubt they will be MLB players in the very near future, like a Strasburg. After all, what position player has a higher ceiling than D'Vo? If we're mostly rating on talent/ceiling then he should probably be in everyone's top 10.

 

Who's ultimately a better prospect? Someone 17 years old performing very well in Helena or a just drafted 21 year old performing just as well at the same level? I'd argue the 17 year old nearly every time because he has a realistic chance of being in MLB by the time he's 22, even moving at a conservative pace. Obviously if you get a special college talent like Braun he's going to be in MLB by age 22 or 23 and also has a very high ceiling, but again we aren't talking about that level of college talent here. Some had Bradley rated that high, but while he's acending as a player his body of college work isn't exactly awe inspiring either.

 

I also think the track record of the scouting director has to factor in, Colby talked quite a bit about the Brewers doing well developing talent as a reason why the Brewer system is underrated over the winter, but the people who made and fought for the those picks in many cases are no longer with the organization. They are in Seattle, Houston, etc... We don't have the same people evaluating the talent and the current scouting dept has quite a bit to prove. I do like Seid, but he's quickly running out of time, this most recent draft class must hit the ground running or his job will be in jeopardy, and rightly so.

 

I just don't how any subjective rating measure is better than another, ultimately the players will slot themselves and prove their worth. Personally I enjoy reading lists that are very dissimilar from my own with comments written in as I might have overlooked a player who's going through a tough stretch, I also enjoy reading other people's perspectives on players.

I used the example of Strasburg not because it was realistic, but because I think the logic of saying a guy has to do something at the minor league level is foolish. A good prospect is a good prospect regardless of what league they are in.

[TheCrew07]

Foolish based on your subjective analysis and the extreme examples as proof that you offered? My point was none of these guys are can't miss and just because you think they are top 10 talent based solely on draft position and relative talent doesn't make it so. I think it's foolish to criticize other people's methodology when it's based on a pretty reasonable mix of talent and results. Furthermore it was much easier to bump Z's picks into the top 10 than it is Seid's, simply because most of those guys were so obviously special in one way or another, Z had a track record of success to back his picks which Seid does not.

 

I understand and agree with your point that sometimes you have to wait for the ultimate results to match the talent but I don't have any issue with a "wait and see" approach when it comes to rating prospects. Obviously Arnett doesn't deserve to be a top 10 prospect even though he was talented enough to be a #1 pick, he's barely in your top 30.

[YoungGeezy]

Its not that I dont think draft picks will be good, high prospects, I just prefer them to at least throw a pitch or swing a bat professionally before I get done on my knees and hail to their greatness. Bradley couldnt dominate college hitters and lost his ACE spot, Jungmann dominated but has awful and jerky mechanics, is inconsistant around the plate, and secondary stuff is not dominate. They give no reason outside of draft position to lead me to believe that they are in fact top prospects. Like Crew said it is preference. Top prospect is something to be earned IMO and not based soley on draft position and college/hs percormance. I hope they do work there way up to a top crew prospect but they have to do it on the field. Peralta has, Thorny has....Jungmann has not. I also dont hold DSL, AZ, and Helena rookie at a high standard unless it is a young talent (16-19) like Walla, Rivera, Arcia, Ozuna. Caption Lou taught me a lesson.

 

Also Strasburg is a once a decade pitcher, so cant even use him. Gerrit Cole.....as of now ill stick with Peralta. He has great stuff but has yet to play pro ball and was not "untouchable" in college. Could very well bust. #1 overall doesnt equal greatest prospect ever. Plenty of proof to that. Top 10 is still even a crap shot. So why say that draft position and the hope he can really pitch trump all?

[ramssuperbowl99]

Foolish based on your subjective analysis and the extreme examples as proof that you offered? My point was none of these guys are can't miss and just because you think they are top 10 talent based solely on draft position and relative talent doesn't make it so. I think it's foolish to criticize other people's methodology when it's based on a pretty reasonable mix of talent and results. Furthermore it was much easier to bump Z's picks into the top 10 than it is Seid's, simply because most of those guys were so obviously special in one way or another, Z had a track record of success to back his picks which Seid does not.

 

I understand and agree with your point that sometimes you have to wait for the ultimate results to match the talent but I don't have any issue with a "wait and see" approach when it comes to rating prospects. Obviously Arnett doesn't deserve to be a top 10 prospect even though he was talented enough to be a #1 pick, he's barely in your top 30.

Yes. The extreme example does a great job at pointing out the questionable logic of "I'm not putting any guy without pro experience in the top 10".

You can sugarcoat that all you want, but it doesn't make sense. If Jungmann is a better pitching prospect right now than Scarpetta, he should be ranked higher.

EDIT: It's worth noting that, while not having Jungmann or Bradley in the top 10 is really extreme, it's not that ranking I have issue with. It's the "no prospect can be a top 10 prospect without pro experience" absolute attitude that was in his first post.

[TheCrew07]

So if Jungmann comes in and pitches (since we won't see him in Helena) like Nelson did to start this season in A ball or Arnett did the year before, he should still have been worthy of a top 10 rating in the system? You've yet to adequately qualify what's so wrong with the vast majority of prospects having to earn their ranking? At any given point we'll have at least 3 sets of round 1-3 picks in addition to the latin kids in the system not to mention there's always a couple of overachievers doing well in the upper minors. Obviously it's much easier to bust into the top 10 today than it was in say 2005, but I'm not sure why anyone outside of a Strasburg or Harper type should instantly be a top 10 player on draft day? He didn't say he needs a 3 year record of success, he said he wants to see some results in pro ball before assigning a player a high grade, which is a reasonable opinion.

 

No matter how bad the system is there will always be a fair amount of talent in it. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that Jungmann will have a better career or beat Heckathorn to Milwaukee unless he does some major work to his delivery and tightens up his secondary stuff. Taking everything into consideration (talent, level of competition, production, projection) at this time I'm going to rate Heckathorn higher. Jungmann may certainly eclipse Heckathorn down the road, but today I'm going to rank the prospects the way I did. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying I'm awfully conservative when it comes to ranking pitchers because so often the draft day scouting reports don't match what I see when I watch the players in WI, especially velocity wise. In the specific case I mentioned, Jungmann had zero WOW factor to his game when I saw him pitch, not once did he impress me with a great pitch. Even someone I've been critical of like Scarpetta would WOW me with the occational curve or with a perfectly located FB. Personally I've become more conservative over time, I'm not even willing to make excuses for players anymore, I've been burned too many times trying to reason away poor results by prospects.

 

I lean much more towards Geezy's philosophy than I do yours.

[ramssuperbowl99]

So if Jungmann comes in and pitches (since we won't see him in Helena) like Nelson did to start this season in A ball or Arnett did the year before, he should still have been worthy of a top 10 rating in the system? You've yet to adequately qualify what's so wrong with the vast majority of prospects having to earn their ranking? At any given point we'll have at least 3 sets of round 1-3 picks in addition to the latin kids in the system not to mention there's always a couple of overachievers doing well in the upper minors. Obviously it's much easier to bust into the top 10 today than it was in say 2005, but I'm not sure why anyone outside of a Strasburg or Harper type should instantly be a top 10 player on draft day? He didn't say he needs a 3 year record of success, he said he wants to see some results in pro ball before assigning a player a high grade, which is a reasonable opinion.

 

No matter how bad the system is there will always be a fair amount of talent in it. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that Jungmann will have a better career or beat Heckathorn to Milwaukee unless he does some major work to his delivery and tightens up his secondary stuff. Taking everything into consideration (talent, level of competition, production, projection) at this time I'm going to rate Heckathorn higher. Jungmann may certainly eclipse Heckathorn down the road, but today I'm going to rank the prospects the way I did. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying I'm awfully conservative when it comes to ranking pitchers because so often the draft day scouting reports don't match what I see when I watch the players in WI, especially velocity wise. In the specific case I mentioned, Jungmann had zero WOW factor to his game when I saw him pitch, not once did he impress me with a great pitch. Even someone I've been critical of like Scarpetta would WOW me with the occational curve or with a perfectly located FB. Personally I've become more conservative over time, I'm not even willing to make excuses for players anymore, I've been burned too many times trying to reason away poor results by prospects.

 

I lean much more towards Geezy's philosophy than I do yours.

The reason that making players "earn their rankings" is because better pitchers are put lower on the list. It's really that simple. Anyone who does this professionally will tell you (as Jim Callis of BA has done repeatedly) that Jungmann and Bradley are in our top 3 prospects right now before they sign. You lean with whoever you want. I'll go with the people who get paid to do this for a living.

[And That]

Being a major league prospect in pro ball is about talent + performance. You can be a prospect if talent = 100 and performance = 0, or you can be a prospect if talent = 25 and performance = 75.

 

That said, I'm taking the 100/0 guy over the 25/75* guy 9 times out of 10.

 

*I would argue that while it's possible to be 100/0, it is impossible to be 0/100. That's why you have to take talent over performance.

[YoungGeezy]

Everyone rates different. I am one of the few who doesn't rate as highly on pure talent. That can be seen on my top 10 on the 1st or 2nd page. I'm one of the few who did not have Arcia ranked and I described it the same as above, he has only done it in DSL and I will wait til he gets to the states before I decide what kind of prospect he is. (Outside of some Carlos Martinez types, it is hard to get a great read on DSL players. Just so little info.) Based on pure talent Bradley, Jungmann, Peralta, Thornburg, Arcia, Richardson, Gennett, Ozuna? (Bruce Seid has me believing so), Rogers, Scarpetta in some order as of now would prob be the top 10 most naturally talented, high ceiling guys in my eyes but due to performance grades guys like Green, Gindl, Schafer, Komatsu, Heckathorn, Khris Davis.....etc sneak in there even though they may not have as high of ceilings.

 

All how you favor ranking players. As a football and track coach it is hard for me to look at talent alone or as most of the pie because I see it all the time....talent doesn't always translate into great performance. So that is why I rate the way I do.

[TheCrew07]

The reason that making players "earn their rankings" is because better pitchers are put lower on the list. It's really that simple. Anyone who does this professionally will tell you (as Jim Callis of BA has done repeatedly) that Jungmann and Bradley are in our top 3 prospects right now before they sign. You lean with whoever you want. I'll go with the people who get paid to do this for a living.

I'm not going to ever argue against talent, but better pitchers? Best case scenario Thornburg's ceiling is similar to Jungmann's, and I'd argue that Thornburg is actually a better athlete. It would seem that you are making this about right and wrong... the pundits agree with me so I'm right type thing... I like the gurus just fine, and I enjoy reading their opinions, especially those that come out of BA. However, some of those same guys that are now championing a Peralta for example, once said that he was nothing more than a reliever. The same argument that was made against Thornburg, so I take their opinions for what they are and nothing more.

 

When TH thumped his chest because BA used most of his prospect submission for their top 30, it called into question how BA rates their prospects. When I started following the minors I was under the impression that BA was independently scouting and impartially making their lists. The reality of a beat writers submitting lists when they've never seen at least 90% of the players on the list play suggests that they are just asking the organization and going with what they tell him, and then in turn submitting it to BA.

 

These are fan top 10 prospect lists, no one here is getting paid to do this except for Colby and he didn't offer a list, I say let people make their lists however they want. The fun is discussing the prospects, not nitpicking how lists are created. I don't see how you could leave Khris Davis completely off of your 50 player list and then bag on how someone chooses to create their top 10. People asked about it, you responded, and the issue was dropped, why not do the same here?