Baseball America says Brewers minor league system ranks last in MLB.

[Boomer5]

I don’t know about last but certainly bottom 5. Nothing surprising. They traded away a lot of prospects, haven’t drafted well, and recently have been losing draft picks to trades and FA.

 

If they can extend Yelich, Hiura turns into Molitor, and the young pitchers round into form, they will have time to draft better.

[JosephC]

I wouldn't put Grisham in the top 100 if I'm an unbiased evaluator.

I was DMing with a pro scout last night (that does not work for the Brewers) who said that while he has not seen Grisham personally in AAA this year, he's talked to scouts who have and the buzz seems to be that Grisham has worked himself at least back to, and probably past, the value he had when he was drafted. I didn't ask about "top 100" because it's honestly not a very good evaluation measure, but it's fair to say he's in that neighborhood. At least from who I've talked to.

 

Generally about 8-9 draft prospects wind up in the top 100 pretty immediately. Some guys like Brady Singer slip but still seems to get valued higher based on pre-draft hype. And on the flip side, some guy that might get "over-drafted" at #6 overall will not make the top 100 list. If I remember correctly, Grisham was pretty much drafted in the area right where he was expected to go. I'm guessing that would put him in the #150-#175 area overall. That's about 100 spots higher than I would have anticipated. A #150-#175 player should easily rank in the top 4 of the Brewer's system.

[JosephC]

I challenge Lutz being a borderline Top 100 prospect. A K rate that has increased each of the last two years (and now almost 30% in A-ball), an ISO that has decreased each year, and a wRC+ of slightly above average; slightly above average in A-ball doesn't project well. As for "taking a month to adjust", he had a very nice OPS for May but June and July have regressed and he's under a .700 OPS for July with a 3:1 K:BB rate. I get that he's 2.5 years younger than average for his leagues the last two years, could quite possibly have a Grisham-like jump in the next year or two, and I am not saying that he's a bust by any stretch of the imagination, but right now he is much closer to #250 than #100. I have him as the 4th best prospect on his own team, behind Turang, Ashby, and Feliciano (who also K's a lot, but has had better offensive production at a more premium position and is a couple of months younger than Lutz), fifth if you count former teammate Rasmussen.

 

 

Definitely agree on Lutz. Seems like all his high ranking comes almost solely from a couple guys at Fangraphs. And that is largely based on an exit velocity number he posted in a workout. And here is the latest Fangraphs write-up I could find on Lutz:

 

"Lutz’s 2018 foray into full-season ball (.272/.348/.477 in May, June and July) was bookended by two awful months (he hit .180 in April, .215 in August) resulting in a .245/.321/.421 line. Already at physical maturity, Lutz’s huge power is the foundation of his profile. He’s capable of hitting long home runs to left and center, and he has the raw strength to drive out mis-hit balls the opposite way. Everything else he does is average. Adept at identifying breaking balls in mid air, Lutz’s moderate swing-and-miss issues stem from his mediocre bat control. This might limit his game power output, but the issues aren’t so bad that we’re worried about Lutz not hitting entirely. He has below-average range and instincts in right field, but his arm is plus. Lutz will likely start next season, age-20, at Hi-A. He projects as a middle-of-the-order power bat who provides little value on defense."

 

So the guy has huge power but had mediocre bat control that could limit his game power output? Doesn't seem like exit velocity would mean that much if the hitter has mediocre bat control and can't get the ball on the sweet part of the bat. They list his hit tool as 30/45, so they project him to have a below average hit tool even when he reaches his peak. And then they say he has a plus arm, but outside of that doesn't seem to have much of an upside as a right-fielder and they even state "provides little value on defense" at the end of the profile. So his game is all power, and so far in full-season ball he's had nearly 900 plate appearances and in those 900 plate appearances his slugging percentage is .410. Manny Pina has a .424 slugging percentage so far this season.

 

I'm guessing the majority of MLB teams would slot him in the #250-#300 area.

[SomewhereInTime]

Not that record matters a whole lot in the minors (though it's never bad to win games), but I find it interesting that the worst minor league system has great teams in AAA, AA, and A+ ball (and in the completely worthless DSL).

[adambr2]

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2019?list=mil

 

New Brewers pipeline top 30 is out.

 

I'm kind of blown away by this one. For one there is just no earthly way that Trent Grisham is not even a top 6 prospect in this system, and Supak is also ridiculously underrated. I know he doesn't have a big swing and miss profile, but with his production he doesn't even crack the top 10? Come on.

 

It feels like they did this in about 5 minutes, threw in our high draft picks somewhere and moved some guys around a little bit.

[Lathund]

MLB Pipeline is generally the prospect site I pay the least attention to, because as you say it feels rather lacklustre. Draft picks (In the top 100 and the individual top 30s) get added almost exactly in the order drafted, and it takes a long time for that to change. And that might be a conscious choice, that they focus more than other publications on reflecting some kind of consensus among the teams and less on their own evaluation, and that they have a bit more inertia in there to not overreact to hot/cold streaks or injuries and such. And there's value to that approach, but I think they take it a bit too far. What I do like is that they write a fair bit about each prospect, so you at least get a sense of what type of player they are.

 

That being said, I honestly don't have a problem with Grisham still being relatively low rated. I've always been one of his supporters (He was my breakout pick for 2019, and I think for 2018 as well), and he's always done fairly well considering age, level and position etc. But the fact remains that he's only played like a high end prospect for a few months. And even beyond that, prospect evaluation isn't just about stats, or present performance, but about how well someone will do in the majors. While Grisham has always had a great eye at the plate, both hitting for average and power are fairly recent additions to his game. Now I think it's real, but it makes sense to be skeptical and only gradually upgrade him as a prospect. Then there's also the rest of his game. Most scouts and prospect evaluators seems to think that Grisham isn't going to stick in CF, and his arm limits him to LF. If that wasn't the case, him being an average CF with that bat would see him soar. As a LF, his bat will need to be a lot closer to the more optimistic projections/scenarios than to the median.

 

I also don't really know how Pipeline uses their scouting grades. Their overall ratings are higher than a site like Fangraphs. There, it's very transparent what that FV means. A 50 FV there would mean that the median/most likely outcome is that the player will be a league-average starter over his 6+ years of team control, or roughly a ~2 WAR/season guy. (That could be a result of a very low floor and extremely high ceiling, or it could be a guy with a fairly narrow range of outcomes etc). If that's what the 50 they put on Grisham means, then they're not really low on him. But I doubt it, as there are just so many more 50s on Pipeline than elsewhere.

 

Likewise they're not really down on Supak; "That said, Supak has all the ingredients to be a successful big league starter, with size, stuff and feel for pitching that point to him becoming a durable, back-of-the-rotation asset for the Brewers." Which is what a 45 FV represents at FG. Supak is someone who gets that grade as a low-risk/high floor/low ceiling type of guy. What counts against him is that an already low K% at AA is likely going to be even lower in the majors, and struggling to put away hitters can get ugly. You can be a solid starter with a high K% but little else, or as a low K% but great control and good overall game (defense, holding runners, poise, groundballs etc etc), but to be anything more than a #3-4 you need both. Which is not to say that'll never happen with Supak, a guy like Scherzer took until his 5th season to become the strikeout god he is today, but Supak isn't that guy now.

[JosephC]

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2019?list=mil

 

New Brewers pipeline top 30 is out.

 

I'm kind of blown away by this one. For one there is just no earthly way that Trent Grisham is not even a top 6 prospect in this system, and Supak is also ridiculously underrated. I know he doesn't have a big swing and miss profile, but with his production he doesn't even crack the top 10? Come on.

 

It feels like they did this in about 5 minutes, threw in our high draft picks somewhere and moved some guys around a little bit.

 

Turang is #81 on the Pipeline Top 100 list. I'd bet if BA expanded the list to top 110, that he'd be in that 101-110 area. I'd guess that most MLB clubs would rate him as a back end of the Top 100 player.

[JosephC]

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2019?list=mil

 

New Brewers pipeline top 30 is out.

 

I'm kind of blown away by this one. For one there is just no earthly way that Trent Grisham is not even a top 6 prospect in this system, and Supak is also ridiculously underrated. I know he doesn't have a big swing and miss profile, but with his production he doesn't even crack the top 10? Come on.

 

It feels like they did this in about 5 minutes, threw in our high draft picks somewhere and moved some guys around a little bit.

 

Supak is going to get screwed in this deal because he's always profiled as a #5 or maybe #4 starter based on his stuff. Scouts/evaluators will be stuck in that scouting report as long as Supak's K/9 rate remains rather ordinary. It's just the environment we are in. I'm coming around to the idea that he's vastly under-rated and under-valued and he's clearly moved into the "hold" category. As ordinary as the K/9 rate is, his K/BB ratio is just a shade under 4 and that's way more than good enough for me to be pretty excited about him.

[folly412]

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2019?list=mil

 

New Brewers pipeline top 30 is out.

 

I'm kind of blown away by this one. For one there is just no earthly way that Trent Grisham is not even a top 6 prospect in this system, and Supak is also ridiculously underrated. I know he doesn't have a big swing and miss profile, but with his production he doesn't even crack the top 10? Come on.

 

It feels like they did this in about 5 minutes, threw in our high draft picks somewhere and moved some guys around a little bit.

 

I also found these rankings to be absurd. It seems to be a ceiling ranking entirely on perceived potential rather than actual value. And also agree that they seem to have vomited out the preseason list and made some quick updates to get the draft picks in.

 

Among the silliness: Zack Brown has risen from #6 to #4 despite a disastrous season. Supak has dropped from #11 to #13 despite a terrific season. And does anyone believe Diplan is still our 21st best prospect, yet File, Zavolas, and Bettinger don't crack the top 30?

[adambr2]

Blind test, if you told someone a prospect was in the Yankees or Dodgers system, was a former top 15 overall pick, was only 22 and OPSing over 1.100 in AAA with 23 HR already still in July in the minors, what are the chances that this prospect would not be rated among the top overall 50?

 

Yet a Cub college shortstop drafted right around Turang last year who was less touted than Turang and got much less signing bonus, is already 22, missed most of this season with an injury so far and otherwise mediocre in AA, cracks the top 50. Figure that one out.

[SomewhereInTime]

Blind test, if you told someone a prospect was in the Yankees or Dodgers system, was a former top 15 overall pick, was only 22 and OPSing over 1.100 in AAA with 23 HR already still in July in the minors, what are the chances that this prospect would not be rated among the top overall 50?

 

Yet a Cub college shortstop drafted right around Turang last year who was less touted than Turang and got much less signing bonus, is already 22, missed most of this season with an injury so far and otherwise mediocre in AA, cracks the top 50. Figure that one out.

 

A very good point, and why I don't put much faith in these rankings especially given the success many of our guys are having in the minors.

[Eye Black]

Blind test, if you told someone a prospect was in the Yankees or Dodgers system, was a former top 15 overall pick, was only 22 and OPSing over 1.100 in AAA with 23 HR already still in July in the minors, what are the chances that this prospect would not be rated among the top overall 50?

 

Yet a Cub college shortstop drafted right around Turang last year who was less touted than Turang and got much less signing bonus, is already 22, missed most of this season with an injury so far and otherwise mediocre in AA, cracks the top 50. Figure that one out.

Yankees outfield prospect Estevan Florial is just 12 months younger than Grisham and hasn’t yet gotten above A+ ball where he currently has a .647 OPS, but according to MLB.com he remains the Yankees #2 overall prospect.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Blind test, if you told someone a prospect was in the Yankees or Dodgers system, was a former top 15 overall pick, was only 22 and OPSing over 1.100 in AAA with 23 HR already still in July in the minors, what are the chances that this prospect would not be rated among the top overall 50?

 

Yet a Cub college shortstop drafted right around Turang last year who was less touted than Turang and got much less signing bonus, is already 22, missed most of this season with an injury so far and otherwise mediocre in AA, cracks the top 50. Figure that one out.

 

This is so, so true. These rankings pages have some major bias toward certain teams who are terrific at hyping their prospects.

[SRB]

Ranking Adley Rutschman in the top 10 is preposterous. These rankings never amount to very much.

[And That]

The #14 overall pick should be able to fetch more than a 2.5 month bullpen rental. The #5 overall pick should be a top 100 prospect, and shouldn't strike out 30% of the time in AA - doesn't project well for the majors.

As for the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts"...

 

The research is about two years old, but a buddy of mine dug into this, and the median WAR for the 14th overall pick in the modern incarnation of the Rule 4 draft is, drumroll... -0.3. Yes, negative WAR. While most 14th overall picks made it, most were contributors of almost no note at the MLB level. By trading Medeiros for Soria, the Brewers (sort of) guaranteed that the pick turned into some sort of value, which is more than what usually happens. It's a very risk-off move.

 

The 5th overall pick is interesting in that it has the lowest incidence of MLBers drafted at that pick of any pick before #15 overall. So it's kind of a bad luck pick. So somewhat crazily, the median WAR out of the 5th overall pick is -1.1.

 

This is all using bWAR, by the way.

 

Really after the top 4 picks in the draft, it's a huge crapshoot. The idea that a 5th overall pick or 14th overall pick should or shouldn't be something is not born out by draft position. It's luck with a hint of skill.

[SoCalBrewfan]

The lists have some inertia, as they should, particularly in season. So Grisham or Ray doesn't drop as far as you might expect in a mediocre season, and then Grisham doesn't gain as many positions as you might expect in a breakthrough. If you base your rankings on scouting as well as stats, that is as it should be.

 

Really after the top 4 picks in the draft, it's a huge crapshoot.

 

I think a study concluding a huge drop-off from 1-4 to 1-5 is flawed. Doing statistics on the MLB draft, for which there is a sample size of one each year, you can't possibly hope for that level of precision in your conclusions. It's also not clear that median is the right metric, or at least the only right metric. In the last 20 years, along with all the busts, there have been four guys taken 5th overall with 40+ bWAR, but nobody taken 4th overall has hit that level (Ryan Zimmerman is close at 37.8).

[LouisEly]

The lists have some inertia, as they should, particularly in season. So Grisham or Ray doesn't drop as far as you might expect in a mediocre season, and then Grisham doesn't gain as many positions as you might expect in a breakthrough. If you base your rankings on scouting as well as stats, that is as it should be.

 

Really after the top 4 picks in the draft, it's a huge crapshoot.

 

I think a study concluding a huge drop-off from 1-4 to 1-5 is flawed. Doing statistics on the MLB draft, for which there is a sample size of one each year, you can't possibly hope for that level of precision in your conclusions. It's also not clear that median is the right metric, or at least the only right metric. In the last 20 years, along with all the busts, there have been four guys taken 5th overall with 40+ bWAR, but nobody taken 4th overall has hit that level (Ryan Zimmerman is close at 37.8).

This is true, and given the addition of the bonus pool in 2012 and comp picks for unsigned picks in 2010, the players picked prior to those years may not have been the players picked had those rules been in place at that time.

 

What I will acknowledge is that the #5 overall pick in one year may not be the same as the #5 overall pick in another year. In the last 20 years the Brewers have had top 5 picks four times, and three of those years had arguably three of the lowest levels of talent in a draft during that time with 2003 (Weeks #2 overall) being perhaps the worst draft class of the last 20 years. Take Verlander out of the 2004 class (Rogers #5 overall) and it's as bad as 2003.

[And That]

I think a study concluding a huge drop-off from 1-4 to 1-5 is flawed.

The median drop-off kind of is what it is. I'm assuming the veracity of the data is fine, which if it is, the drop-off appears to exist. As I said, the 5th overall seems to be a bad luck pick of sorts, looking at the median outcome.

 

And the median outcome was used and not the mean, I assume, because it eliminates the fact that every slot in the first round of the draft has had superstars drafted in it and that skews the average outcome of the pick. If you have 20 nobodys, and also Babe Ruth, it's going to look like the average is pretty decent. There's only a little over 50 years of data, so with that sort of small-ish population, large numbers at the top can still definitely skew an average.

 

Should teams feel that drafting at 14 overall is a lost cause? Of course not. Luck and scouting skill can absolutely increase the odds. But "should" the 14th overall be a solid MLB contributor? History seems to indicate that should not be a foregone conclusion, or even be assumed to be a likely outcome.

[Austin Tatious]

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2019?list=mil

 

New Brewers pipeline top 30 is out.

 

I'm kind of blown away by this one. For one there is just no earthly way that Trent Grisham is not even a top 6 prospect in this system, and Supak is also ridiculously underrated. I know he doesn't have a big swing and miss profile, but with his production he doesn't even crack the top 10? Come on.

 

It feels like they did this in about 5 minutes, threw in our high draft picks somewhere and moved some guys around a little bit.

 

Supak is going to get screwed in this deal because he's always profiled as a #5 or maybe #4 starter based on his stuff. Scouts/evaluators will be stuck in that scouting report as long as Supak's K/9 rate remains rather ordinary. It's just the environment we are in. I'm coming around to the idea that he's vastly under-rated and under-valued and he's clearly moved into the "hold" category. As ordinary as the K/9 rate is, his K/BB ratio is just a shade under 4 and that's way more than good enough for me to be pretty excited about him.

 

There’s parallels in that regard to Brent Suter. For all the Manny Parras of the world who rolled through with hype, a guy like Suter got almost no credit. Say what you want, but he’s a major league pitcher and maybe starter. He knows how to pitch.

 

I’m not going to make a judgement on Supak because I haven’t studied him beyond his numbers. His lack of a power repertoire may be his undoing as he gets older but we will have to see.

 

I heard an interview with Tommy John the other day. He’s an old man now and maybe a little angry but one of his themes was in the pre-radar gun era, if you knew how to pitch, you’d do well. He won 288 games.

[MadThinker88]

Bleacher Report updated its system rankings today (post-trade deadline).

Brewers at #29

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2847603-updated-mlb-farm-system-rankings-after-2019-trade-deadline#slide3

[markedman5]

Supak dominating tonight

 

[clancyphile]

Supak is going to get screwed in this deal because he's always profiled as a #5 or maybe #4 starter based on his stuff. Scouts/evaluators will be stuck in that scouting report as long as Supak's K/9 rate remains rather ordinary. It's just the environment we are in. I'm coming around to the idea that he's vastly under-rated and under-valued and he's clearly moved into the "hold" category. As ordinary as the K/9 rate is, his K/BB ratio is just a shade under 4 and that's way more than good enough for me to be pretty excited about him.

 

There’s parallels in that regard to Brent Suter. For all the Manny Parras of the world who rolled through with hype, a guy like Suter got almost no credit. Say what you want, but he’s a major league pitcher and maybe starter. He knows how to pitch.

 

I’m not going to make a judgement on Supak because I haven’t studied him beyond his numbers. His lack of a power repertoire may be his undoing as he gets older but we will have to see.

 

I heard an interview with Tommy John the other day. He’s an old man now and maybe a little angry but one of his themes was in the pre-radar gun era, if you knew how to pitch, you’d do well. He won 288 games.

 

I was higher on Suter than most here when he was in the minors. I note that the Crew is assembling some others like him in Zavolas, Lazar, and Supak. I'll add Roegner, too, even though he's been hurt most of this year.

 

To me, a high K/BB ratio and a low WHIP are the two stats that will get me excited - especially when someone has both. Yes, I like a high K/9, like from Angel Perdomo (who I'd call a lefty Turnbow), but I like me a Henry Medina, too - 4.00 K/BB and a 0.840 WHIP.

 

This may be a market inefficiency - teams are scrambling for the fireballers, but guys who can pitch may throw hitters off, especially when they induce grounders and/or soft contact.

[LouisEly]

There's reason to be optimistic. Looking at the last few drafts - 2016, 2017, and 2018 all have been able to get talent beyond the first couple of rounds.

 

2016 - Burnes, Brown, Feliciano, P. Henry, Webb. Some of these guys had down years, but the talent is still there. Burnes was drafted only three years ago and he was expected to be a starter in the majors this year.

2017 - B. Francis, A. Bettinger, M. Lazar, D. File. All had breakout seasons this year, and are likely undervalued because they weren't top picks and weren't on the prospect radar before this year. Bettinger is 2nd in the Southern League in K's, Francis 7th. Lazar's K/9 is 3rd among starters in the Midwest League. Their numbers aren't that much different from the Braves highly regarded pitching prospects.

2018 - Ashby, Jarvis, Rasmussen, Andrews, Matulovich. All have either impressed this year or last year. Plus, Garabitos has transitioned to pitching well this year and Brady Schanuel is striking out 17/9 this year - if he can harness some control he can be an elite relief prospect.

 

Pretty much all pitchers. The top picks were all bats, many of them somewhat high risk/high reward and young for their leagues.

[Oxy]

There's reason to be optimistic. Looking at the last few drafts - 2016, 2017, and 2018 all have been able to get talent beyond the first couple of rounds.

 

2016 - Burnes, Brown, Feliciano, P. Henry, Webb. Some of these guys had down years, but the talent is still there. Burnes was drafted only three years ago and he was expected to be a starter in the majors this year.

2017 - B. Francis, A. Bettinger, M. Lazar, D. File. All had breakout seasons this year, and are likely undervalued because they weren't top picks and weren't on the prospect radar before this year. Bettinger is 2nd in the Southern League in K's, Francis 7th. Lazar's K/9 is 3rd among starters in the Midwest League. Their numbers aren't that much different from the Braves highly regarded pitching prospects.

2018 - Ashby, Jarvis, Rasmussen, Andrews, Matulovich. All have either impressed this year or last year. Plus, Garabitos has transitioned to pitching well this year and Brady Schanuel is striking out 17/9 this year - if he can harness some control he can be an elite relief prospect.

 

Pretty much all pitchers. The top picks were all bats, many of them somewhat high risk/high reward and young for their leagues.

 

Yep. And while we didn't draft Zavolas, but he's looking pretty good too.

 

Most of these guys are performing at the A+ level or lower, but the sheer volume of guys performing well should mean a few of them can sustain it and become quality MLB pitchers. Unfortunately they are all 2+ years away. Other than Turang and our catchers (and Grisham and Hiura) we have no position players who look to contribute at the same time though. We'll need to hit on a couple of Hiura like college bats in the next couple of drafts and then fill in from there with FAs and Shaw/Aguilar/Thames kinds of acquisitions.

[Eye Black]

I went back and looked at the Baseball America top 30 from this past off-season (as it appeared in the Prospect Handbook).

 

Three players that ranked ahead of Trent Grisham have been since traded (#6 Mauricio Dubon, #20 Marcos Diplan, and #26 Cody Ponce).

 

Grisham ranked #27 on the Brewers top 30 list with he following passage (book released February of 2019):

 

Grisham, who used to go by the last name Clark, was considered one of the best prep hitters in the country when the Brewers drafted him in the first round in 2015, but he’s never lived up to that as a pro. He put together a second straight uninspiring season in 2018, this time at Double-A Biloxi after the Brewers tried to challenge him.

 

Grisham is still trying to find a consistent stroke at the plate. He has a good eye, drawing enough walks each season to produce a respectable OBP (.356 in 2018) but has shown little power while compiling low low batting averages every season. Grisham often is too passive at the plate, taking good pitches and falling behind in the count, leading to too many strikeouts for a hitter of his supposed caliber. When he does choose to swing, he hits enough line drives to make you wonder if power eventually will come, but he also takes an alarming number of noncompetitive swings where he pulls of the ball. Grisham continues to play all three outfield positions, with his average speed and below-average arm fitting best in left field.

 

Grisham is still young enough to hope he will turn it around, but it’s time for a big season that befits a first-round pick.

It’s been just over six months since the Prospect Handbook was released and Trent Grisham is starting in LF and batting leadoff at Wrigley Field.