BA’s Padres top 10
February 8th, 2009 | Published in San Diego Padres, baseball, links, prospects | 5 Comments
by Myron Logan
I don’t know how I forgot to link to this, but here it is (h/t: Baseball in Fort Wayne):
1. Kyle Blanks
2. Mat Latos
3. Jaff Decker
4. Kellen Kulbacki
5. Adys Portillo
6. Cedric Hunter
7. Will Venable
8. Allen Dykstra
9. Matt Antonelli
10. James Darnell
The surprises there are probably Portillo and Venable, who are on opposite sides of the prospect spectrum (Portillo is 17, Venable 26). I’ve mentioned this before, but I certainly don’t have a problem with Portillo being ranked high, due to the lack of performance data. Obviously, the guy has the makings of a good pitcher, and should not be ignored because he’s a long way away.
Venable’s stock went up last season, as he hit .292/.361/.464 in Portland and .264/.339/.391 (a 101 OPS+!) with the big club. He added to that some very good fielding in centerfield, according to a very small amount of data from THT’s fielding numbers. Anyway, if he could come somewhere close to average hitting and average fielding in centerfield, he’d be a super valuable ball player over the next few years. I doubt that he’ll be that good, but he’s become another interesting guy to follow, at least.
****
Since we are on prospects, here are some other links/stuff:
John Manuel’s take on the Matt Bush fiasco.
Kirk Kenney profiles Stephen Strasburg, the consensus number 1 pick in the upcoming June draft.
Camden Depot, an Orioles site, does a really good job with prospects. Here’s their Padres top 20 list. They have 3b James Darnell at #2, far higher than anyone else I’ve seen. In this post by Mike Rogers, you can find Darnell’s adjusted college numbers.
The other night, I was messing around with some prospect rankings (Kevin Goldstein’s from Baseball Prospectus, to be exact). Here’s what came out: a little chart for all NL West teams’ prospects, ranked by Goldstein (he gives each prospect a grade, 5, 4, 3, etc., with 5 being the best):
| Padres (3.2) | Giants (3.5) | Dodgers (3.2) | Rockies (3.4) | Dbacks (2.9) |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
I did not use player names, since the BP stuff is behind the pay wall. In the parenthesis in the table above is the average grade for each team’s top 11. So, according to this quick, strange little analysis, the Padres top 11 prospects are in the middle of the pack in the NL West. I do not know what to make of this, if anything, but I thought it was a somewhat interesting way to compare the farm systems, at least the top portion of them, across the division. Maybe sometime I’ll do the same with Sickels’ list, too.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:49 am (#)
Your chart is about what I expected. The Pads are flush with low ceiling, high floor guys that, depending on the publication, means they are a pretty average system.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:29 am (#)
Also interesting is if you assign a rating (out of 5) to all of Goldstein’s top players under the age of 25. While an occasional assumption regarding the rating must be made, in general, based on where the “unrated” players slot in with the already rated players, you can see what their Goldstein “star” would be. Here’s the somewhat depressing results:
Rockies (4.8), Giants (4.3), Dodgers (4.3), DBacks (4.1), Padres (3.35, gave Headley 4.5 stars)
Ouch.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:35 am (#)
First, thanks for linking. I gotta think this season will be the deal-breaker for many ont aht list. Blanks isn’t much of a secret any longer so it’s going to be intersting to see how he performs with a new (higher) set of expectations. Hunter made some great strides last year and probably has momentum on his side too. Will be intersting to see how Latos bounces back too. I didn’t get to see him much in Fort Wayne last year, so I am hoping he’s back for at least a couple months this year.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:06 pm (#)
Mike, yes, I agree with you.
Daniel, good stuff. I’ve always thought farm system ratings were a little suspect, or — um, I’m not sure of the word I’m looking for — incomplete. Why only consider players who are still technically considered prospects? A guy who just graduated from prospect status, but is still like 22 years old and has 5 years under club control, is pretty darn valuable.
Farm system ratings are fine for what they are, but the “under 25″ ratings probably have more value. And your quick analysis shows the Pads are short on young talent, overall.
Chad, yep, Blanks will be fun to watch. I wonder what the Pads are going to do with him, with Gonzalez at first and no other position really an option. It’s a good problem to have, though : )
February 10th, 2009 at 3:34 am (#)
It’s interesting that the Orioles site projects Latos as a late inning guy. I think that’s the first I’ve heard of Latos future being in the pen. But maybe I haven’t been looking close enough.