2018 Top Prospects

[LHG]

The top 3 can go in any order, and the next 2 SHOULD be Duggar and Slater.

Anything past that is a crapshoot.

I put the top 3 in that order due to Shaw's good season, Beede's shaky season and Ramos just beginning his professional career. Yeah, the rest is a crapshoot.

 

[calsnowskier]

I put the top 3 in that order due to Shaw's good season, Beede's shaky season and Ramos just beginning his professional career. Yeah, the rest is a crapshoot.

I agree on your order. But I could understand any other order put up by anyone.

 

[LHG]

Here's a great article on some of the Giants' prospects in the lower levels - Previewing the 2018 Augusta Greenjackets The article is focused on possible debut at Augusta in 2018 but a few of them mentioned won't be starting the season there.

 

[calsnowskier]

DrB put out his preliminary top 50 the other day. He is apparently not a huge fan of Shaw. He thinks his defense will be his downfall (legit criticism).

He says that Crick has graduated due to roster time. However, BBRef still has him listed as a rookie. Same with Stratton.

 

[calsnowskier]

I still stand behind my top 3 being, in order, Shaw - Beede - Ramos. But why?

If Shaw were traded, I would be OK. If Beede were traded, I would be OK. If Ramos were traded, I would be pissed.

So why don’t I have Ramos as my #1?

I think Ramos has the highest ceiling of anyone in the org. But he is super young and super raw. A LOT can go wrong between Augusta and San Francisco. Just look at Gustavo Cabrera. Angel Villalona. Rafael Rodriguez. Chuck Jones. Heck, Lucius Fox...

So if he is such a lottery ticket, why would I be pissed if he were traded (like Lucius Fox)?

I guess a lot comes down to the fact that I am still just an 8 year old boy looking at the presents under the tree. The wrapping paper sparks my imagination. Sure I like the Millenium Falcon I got last year (Shaw or Beede), but it isn’t as exciting anymore. It doesn’t hold the same potential as that unopened gift under the tree (Ramos).

Sorry if I got a bit feely, but I have been trying to valuate potential vs proximity, and the question does get a bit philosophical...

 

[SFGRTB]

Here's your international guy:

Alex Canario

Here's why I'm high on Canario. He's retooled his swing but tapped into more power. He's already a solid defender in RF, very athletic. He's also extremely young, one of the youngest on the team, and youngest in the entire DSL and was one of the best players in the league.

DSL stats should ALWAYS be taken cautiously, but he checked off some really good boxes: power (5 HRs, .170 ISO), K/BB rate (14.6 K%, 12.0 BB%) and speed (18 SBs).

He's starting to gain some steam nationally, finally. Baseball America had a podcast the other day and they proclaimed that they wouldn't be surprised if he was the second best prospect in the system next year. Fangraphs believes he has a higher ceiling than Fabian, who ranks favorably with them, thanks to a greater power projection and similar other tools.

Again with DSL guys it's too soon to get excited. BUT this is really a kid to look out for. He's possibly headed to the AZL next year which will again keep him relatively obscure.

Gregory Santos, the kid in the Nunez deal, has really opened eyes as well.

Here's the BA podcast to listen to Giants Prospects Podcast 2018 | BaseballAmerica.com

 

[SFGRTB]

I still stand behind my top 3 being, in order, Shaw - Beede - Ramos. But why?

If Shaw were traded, I would be OK. If Beede were traded, I would be OK. If Ramos were traded, I would be pissed.

So why don’t I have Ramos as my #1?

I think Ramos has the highest ceiling of anyone in the org. But he is super young and super raw. A LOT can go wrong between Augusta and San Francisco. Just look at Gustavo Cabrera. Angel Villalona. Rafael Rodriguez. Chuck Jones. Heck, Lucius Fox...

So if he is such a lottery ticket, why would I be pissed if he were traded (like Lucius Fox)?

I guess a lot comes down to the fact that I am still just an 8 year old boy looking at the presents under the tree. The wrapping paper sparks my imagination. Sure I like the Millenium Falcon I got last year (Shaw or Beede), but it isn’t as exciting anymore. It doesn’t hold the same potential as that unopened gift under the tree (Ramos).

Sorry if I got a bit feely, but I have been trying to valuate potential vs proximity, and the question does get a bit philosophical...

I guess it's all arbitrary in a way. Everyone ranks their lists different. Personally I don't rank relievers in my top 10, but I'm okay putting Ramos as my number 1 guy, despite just playing in the AZL.

 

[SFGRTB]

Some highlight of the BA podcast: (Giants Prospects Podcast 2018 | BaseballAmerica.com)

Ramos is going to rank as one of the best players from the 2017 draft in their list. According to most scouts Ramos answered his pre-draft questions and is looking like great value for the Giants.

Reynolds CAN hit for more power than he's shown, but hasn't (yet? I still think there's a swing that could be changed. Really curious if David Bell and co will instruct things like that). Scouts still see a possible starting OFer.

Duggar made a believer out of a lot of scouts in the AFL who hadn't yet seen him.

Beede might best served a bullpen guy.

Garrett Williams has the highest upside of pitchers in the system.

Giants' system is bottom-5. Still have plenty of potential contributors but lack huge stars. Ramos is only one, could change soon with Canario and Santos (and obviously the draft that was unmentioned).

They talk about the Giants' offseason, but brought up Cain as an option. These are prospect guys, not major league transactions guys so I'll give them a pass on Cain.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I was planning on putting my list together later in the off season, but...

{...}
Slater is still a rookie, therefore, should be listed. I wonder if he was an oversight or an intentional omission. Same with Crick.

He says that Crick has graduated due to roster time. However, BBRef still has him listed as a rookie. Same with Stratton.

A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit ...

Slater has 122 days of service time.

Crick has 104 days of service time.

Stratton has 120 days of service time.

None of them are rookies anymore.

 

[calsnowskier]

A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit ...

Slater has 122 days of service time.

Crick has 104 days of service time.

Stratton has 120 days of service time.

None of them are rookies anymore.

When I wrote the first post, all those guys were listed as rookies on BBRef, but have all been changed to graduated since. Roster days is not an easily found stat, so I ignored it.

 

[calsnowskier]

I was thinking of our top prospects, and specifically thinking about guys like Ryder Jones who are technically no longer prospects. I think I will do my prospect list differently this year. I will do an under 25 list instead. It makes more sense than using some arbitrary number of MLB ABs or IPs or days. Let’s look at who can actually be a real contributor moving forward instead...


Doing a QUICK perusal of the rosters, this will only make a few differences, though...

Snelton, Gregorio and Herb, for example, are no longer eligible. Conversely, Ryder Jones and Crick are both still eligible, though.

 

[LHG]

A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit ...

Slater has 122 days of service time.

Crick has 104 days of service time.

Stratton has 120 days of service time.

None of them are rookies anymore.

Totally forgot to look at their rookie status (or lack thereof). Thanks for the reminder Marco.

 

[LHG]

I was thinking of our top prospects, and specifically thinking about guys like Ryder Jones who are technically no longer prospects. I think I will do my prospect list differently this year. I will do an under 25 list instead. It makes more sense than using some arbitrary number of MLB ABs or IPs or days. Let’s look at who can actually be a real contributor moving forward instead...


Doing a QUICK perusal of the rosters, this will only make a few differences, though...

Snelton, Gregorio and Herb, for example, are no longer eligible. Conversely, Ryder Jones and Crick are both still eligible, though.

I do find it humorous that the guy you specifically mentioned that made you re-think how you do your prospect list actually gets to still be considered.

 

[calsnowskier]

I do find it humorous that the guy you specifically mentioned that made you re-think how you do your prospect list actually gets to still be considered.

That’s kinda the point, no?

That said, I am not even certain Jones will make my top 10. He looked so gawd-awful last year...

 

[LHG]

That’s kinda the point, no?

That said, I am not even certain Jones will make my top 10. He looked so gawd-awful last year...

Weren't you thinking of Ryder Jones in terms of how to exclude him from consideration, only to have to consider him under your new criteria?

 

[calsnowskier]

Weren't you thinking of Ryder Jones in terms of how to exclude him from consideration, only to have to consider him under your new criteria?

No. The opposite. In a traditional prospect list, he would be omitted since he exceeded rookie limits in ‘17. But he is only 24 and he wasn’t promoted due to performance, but rather out of need instead. Realistically, he is still a prospect.

 

[LHG]

No. The opposite. In a traditional prospect list, he would be omitted since he exceeded rookie limits in ‘17. But he is only 24 and he wasn’t promoted due to performance, but rather out of need instead. Realistically, he is still a prospect.

Got it. Now I'm tracking . . . I think.

 

[Stokes1931]

Some highlight of the BA podcast: (Giants Prospects Podcast 2018 | BaseballAmerica.com)

Ramos is going to rank as one of the best players from the 2017 draft in their list. According to most scouts Ramos answered his pre-draft questions and is looking like great value for the Giants.

Reynolds CAN hit for more power than he's shown, but hasn't (yet? I still think there's a swing that could be changed. Really curious if David Bell and co will instruct things like that). Scouts still see a possible starting OFer.

Duggar made a believer out of a lot of scouts in the AFL who hadn't yet seen him.

Beede might best served a bullpen guy.

Garrett Williams has the highest upside of pitchers in the system.

Giants' system is bottom-5. Still have plenty of potential contributors but lack huge stars. Ramos is only one, could change soon with Canario and Santos (and obviously the draft that was unmentioned).

They talk about the Giants' offseason, but brought up Cain as an option. These are prospect guys, not major league transactions guys so I'll give them a pass on Cain.

I saw Duggar for six games in the AFL and the guy looks legit (if he stays healthy). He has speed. He has decent plate discipline (he worked a couple 0-2 counts into walks, then stole 2nd). His defense is very good. He hit two bombs that I saw. One hit the RF foul pole, the other was crushed to left center. His arm isn't that great, but most CF's do not have cannons. He looked comfortable in CF. He hit anywhere from 1st to 6th in the lineup, and looked good at the top of the lineup.

Garcia had only one walk I think, and had little plate discipline, but still was an RBI machine and caught well.

Was not impressed with Beede. Saw him once in the AFL, and twice last season in Sacramento. In one game in Sacramento, he through absolute gas for four innings. He was unhittable. Then in the 5th, the wheels fell off. Relief might be his calling as you suggest.

 

[SFGRTB]

I saw Duggar for six games in the AFL and the guy looks legit (if he stays healthy). He has speed. He has decent plate discipline (he worked a couple 0-2 counts into walks, then stole 2nd). His defense is very good. He hit two bombs that I saw. One hit the RF foul pole, the other was crushed to left center. His arm isn't that great, but most CF's do not have cannons. He looked comfortable in CF. He hit anywhere from 1st to 6th in the lineup, and looked good at the top of the lineup.

Garcia had only one walk I think, and had little plate discipline, but still was an RBI machine and caught well.

Was not impressed with Beede. Saw him once in the AFL, and twice last season in Sacramento. In one game in Sacramento, he through absolute gas for four innings. He was unhittable. Then in the 5th, the wheels fell off. Relief might be his calling as you suggest.

Duggar is a really good OBP/speed/defense guy, there's a pretty good feeling that he'll be able to achieve that in the majors, which already makes him valuable. The exciting thing about him is the things he has the potential to do on top of that. He has a naturally lofty swing with power potential. His power will make the difference from becoming a Gregor Blanco type of player (still really useful) or an Adam Eaton type of player (stud).

His ability to play CF and RF is handy as well. From what I've heard (an saw in a number of games in SJ) his arm is actually really good. Perhaps he made a bad throw or two in your game, or maybe post injury he lost some steam.

Duggar might be one of my favorite prospects.

As for Beede that's just what the BA were alluding to, that maybe he'd be better focusing on just two pitches and being a bullpen stud.

 

[SFGRTB]

A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit ...

Slater has 122 days of service time.

Crick has 104 days of service time.

Stratton has 120 days of service time.

None of them are rookies anymore.

Is there exceptions for DL time?

It still counts for his service time, sure, but does it count for rookie status? I guess not that it really matters much anyway, outside of ROTY eligibility. Service time is still the money counter.