Thread: Sickels' top 150 prospects is out

here.

No surprise that there are a lot of Twins' prospects, but there are a few surprises in the rankings (including a big one) and a notable prospect is left out...

9 in the top 131?

HA! He has them stacked Hick-Arcia-Buxton (like yours truly).

Who is the notable prospect left out? I only looked for Twins.

Originally Posted by Shane Wahl

Who is the notable prospect left out? I only looked for Twins.

Unless I am blind, May

I'd have probably bumped Arcia up a bit closer to Sano, but not bad. I suppose you have to take positional flexibility in there given that Arcia will play in the corner while Hicks will be a CF.

I'd note he clearly didn't think Buxton was the BPA in the draft ranking both Zunio and Gausman higher.

I don't think its because he thinks Buston is not as good but that there is a higher percent chance that they will have an impact at the major league level at this stage of their developments.

He clearly states that he hasn't seen Buxton play, thus why he is reserved. Kudos for that as far as I am concerned...

He should be reserved. You have to price risk into the model somewhere, something which apparently everyone else ignores.

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

He should be reserved. You have to price risk into the model somewhere, something which apparently everyone else ignores.

False. He just values upside, floor and ceiling differently. He traditionally ranks rookie ball guys lower and safer prospects higher. So it makes sense for this year he would rank college guys who put up numbers in A ball higher than high school guys who did ok in rookie ball. He also generally will rank guys closer to the majors with low ceilings higher than other sites (ie relievers).

I alsp think he has a little bias towards rankings that are more beneficial for fantasy leagues since that is a big part of his paying clientele. Buxton is much further from the majors.

Originally Posted by thrylos98

Unless I am blind, May

May is not a notable prospect. Not a single source- Baseball Prospectus, BA, KLaw, MLB, Seedlings, Bullpen Banter-has May listed among their top 150.

If talent was evenly distributed among the 30 teams, each would have five prospects. The Twins have nine. The rest of the AL Central division had a combined total of 12. The Twins had six prospects ranked before either Chicago or Detroit placed even one prospect. Rosario, our #7 guy, ranked about even with Chicago's #1 guy. Detroit's 3 prospects will all graduate from the rankings this year. The Twins will likely graduate 3 of their 9.

FWIW, He was the Phillies best pitching prospect coming into the 2012 season, according to many reports I read.

Originally Posted by twinscowboysbulls

FWIW, He was the Phillies best pitching prospect coming into the 2012 season, according to many reports I read.

Correct. I think May ranked in the high 60's with BA at the beginning of last year. His stock has fallen to the point that none of the major publications view him as a "notable" prospect, so it was hardly a surprise to see him excluded from yet another list here in 2013.

I wouldn't worry too much about May. When prospects lose their 'shine' they tend to drop a lot. Last year, Hicks missed several BA's editors top 150 list, too. Guys like Josh Bell, Daniel Norris and Jose Iglesias also plummeted after a bad year. Everyone knows what the deal is with May, if he can cut down the walks, he'll be a very nice #3 type starter who should eat a lot of innings. The Twins will give him all the time in the world to get there. If that doesn't work, he's a bullpen arm.

I am in agreement with Sickels that guys who have been good or great in AA/AAA should generally be rated ahead of guys in rookie ball. Just so much unknown between those levels. I do really like Sickels' work, enjoy his site greatly.

Originally Posted by mike wants wins

I am in agreement with Sickels that guys who have been good or great in AA/AAA should generally be rated ahead of guys in rookie ball. Just so much unknown between those levels. I do really like Sickels' work, enjoy his site greatly.

I agree he is quite good. Provides necessary balance to BA and a lesser extent Law.

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

I wouldn't worry too much about May. When prospects lose their 'shine' they tend to drop a lot. Last year, Hicks missed several BA's editors top 150 list, too. Guys like Josh Bell, Daniel Norris and Jose Iglesias also plummeted after a bad year. Everyone knows what the deal is with May, if he can cut down the walks, he'll be a very nice #3 type starter who should eat a lot of innings. The Twins will give him all the time in the world to get there. If that doesn't work, he's a bullpen arm.

If May can cut down on his walks, he's going to be a lot better than a number 3. He should have dropped down on lists. His walk rate was way to high and AA hitters took advantage of that. While the tools are there, he needs to improve. This is one area where the Twins have excelled at, so getting a guy like May who has lost his luster due to control was smart. If that walk rate drops below 3BB/9, he'll be right back up on those prospect lists next year.

Originally Posted by drjim

False. He just values upside, floor and ceiling differently. He traditionally ranks rookie ball guys lower and safer prospects higher. So it makes sense for this year he would rank college guys who put up numbers in A ball higher than high school guys who did ok in rookie ball. He also generally will rank guys closer to the majors with low ceilings higher than other sites (ie relievers).

He came right out and said in his comments that his grade for Buxton had a lot to do with how far away he was. That's risk.

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

He came right out and said in his comments that his grade for Buxton had a lot to do with how far away he was. That's risk.

Sure, and like I said he values all of that differently. Sickels will rank a prospect with a higher floor/lower ceiling higher than others will. He did say that he ranks guys in rookie ball (or guys he hasn't seen) a little lower traditionally and he also said that he is a little more conservative than his colleagues and that often he is proven wrong in this scenario.

I still think in all of your comments you are understating Buxton a little. He has the great tools but he also has skills to back them up. BA and Law just don't rank a guy highly because he merely has tools but also a reasonable expectation to put those tools into actionable skills as they climb the ladder.

I also want to be clear that I am not against Gausman (or Zimmer), I think they are likely to be very good pitchers in the majors. I wouldn't have had a problem if the Twins drafted them, but I am higher on Buxton and despite current org needs think the Twins still made the correct decision.

Guess he decided relievers are not that important?