MLB.com Top-50 Prospects

Jason Heyward at #3
Tommy Hanson at #24
Freddie Freeman at #36

They've got video for some of these guys too.

A couple of our former prospects are on there as well, Neftali Feliz at #9 and Elvis Andrus at #21.

11 months ago gondeee 32 comments 0 recs |

Comments

Just wow. I mean I expected a few controversial placements, it being MLB.com and all, but some of the top 20 have done very little to justify their ranking. Alicides Escobar at 8? I question Elvis at 21 but even so in my mind he’s better than Escobar. I half way accept Feliz and Hanson, but Freeman at 38 behind Jackson, Truinfel, Alonso and Elbert. Not in my book. Call me a homer all you want but Freeman deserves better.

by scstrato on Dec 5, 2008 5:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think it’s cause Escobar has shown some power and is closer to being major league ready. His plate discipline looks really suspect though. Elvis can certainly develop power since he’s only 19 or 20.

by VictorW on Dec 5, 2008 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Your research is almost always impeccable which is why I am surprised you think Escobar has shown power. Outside of this season he hasn’t hit for more than 30 XBH’s in a full seasons worth of stats. I can understand the argument about being closer to the majors, not saying I agree – just understand, but offensively I think he’s the SS version of Juan Pierre.

Elvis hasn’t faired much better but the fact he just turned 20 and played a full year in AA means I’d have him higher than Alicides.

by scstrato on Dec 5, 2008 6:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Escobar being that high shocked me. I saw him a few times with Huntsville this season and he really wasn’t very impressive. Too skinny at his age. But he does seem to produce. I will say, his own coaches dogged him a little, which isn’t a great sign.

by cbwilk on Dec 5, 2008 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Freeman has always been an underrated prospect. On a lot of teams he would be considered their top prospect but on ours he’s the 3rd or 4th based on your opinion. I do however think that he should be higher. I think that Heyward is a little high if for no other reason than the two guys ahead of him are either major league ready or very close and Heyward is still a few years away. I think that these lists should be based on who is close to ready.

by jack dein on Dec 5, 2008 5:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree, which would place someone like Dexter Fowler or Andrew McCutchen ahead of Heyward. I’d take Fowler or McCutchen ahead of Heyward right now, just because there’s less questions, as they’ve already moved up to higher levels and proven themselves.

by drdonkeypunch on Dec 5, 2008 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I Agree On All

I thing Fowler should be top 5, and Freeman can easily be top 30

A noob or n00b is someone that lacks intellegance or common sense, most people think that noob is a word used only in the online gaming world, but in reality it is becoming an ever popular word with teenage society.

a noob could be simply a level 100 running round shouting ‘’WTF DO I GO!?’’ or someone calling someone else a noob and then getting hit with a brick, anyone can call anyone a noob, but normally they are noobs themselves
-robert_d_wilfong

by cwhitman412 on Dec 6, 2008 8:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt that if you’d them all play you’d pick Fowler and McCutchen over Heyward. They’re all great players, but Heyward is head and shoulders above them.

by cbwilk on Dec 6, 2008 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think being MLB-ready should be part of the equation when who is a better prospect. Being MLB-ready has to do with how fast they can contribute to a team. I think it should always be considered “Who will have a better career?” I also think people are very generous with handing out “future ace” labels. Just because a guy has good stuff does make him a future ace.

by beeniez on Dec 5, 2008 6:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I would agree

but the reverse of your argument is that guys closer to the majors have MORE history to evaluate them on.

by scstrato on Dec 5, 2008 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thats more what I was getting at. I think that guys who are close to being in the major leagues and are easier to evaluate. There is no doubt that Heyward has a lot of talent and the chances are better than 50% that he will be a good major league player but he is a lot harder to evaluate.

by jack dein on Dec 5, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am of the thought that the Prospects are evaluated based on how high their ceiling is, and the chance that they will reach it. To compare Heyward and Fowler/McCutchen, Heyward has superstar, MVP type potential while Fowler/McCutchen have very good player potential. Obviously there is more to judge Fowler or McCutchen on right now, but that doesnt by any stretch mean that they are going to be better players.

If you they were just basing it on who is closest to the majors, there really wouldnt be any reason to do a list like this because obviously every player in Triple A or Double A would be more advanaced than Heyward thus more highly rated.

by gopherbroke on Dec 5, 2008 6:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Personally I think that there should be two lists. One that has players who are ready to contribute to their major league team now and played at AA or AAA last year. The other should have players who haven’t played above A+ and are still at least a year away from being ready to contribute.

by jack dein on Dec 5, 2008 7:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m with gopherbroke on this one; prospect lists are based on potential and ceiling. How close a guy is to contributing really has little to do with his overall ceiling as a player.

by cbwilk on Dec 5, 2008 7:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True, we will have a better idea of his ceiling the more he develops and it does make them a safer bet, but if all indications are that he will have an amazing career it shouldn’t matter how far away he is. An elite prospect in Triple-A is certainly more valuable than an elite prospect in High-A, but it really doesn’t answer who the better prospect is. An elite prospect in Triple-A is equal to an elite prospect in High-A in terms of just prospects – which is what we’re dealing with.

It seems that people make their prospect lists based more on where-they-play and the situation they’re in than it is “Who is a better prospect?” I really do think it can be boiled down to “Who has the highest ceiling?” if people were more conservative about ratings. The question most people seem to be answering is “Which prospect has the most value to their respective team?” Sure, that’s a nice list to know how your team’s prospects rank to others, but I’d like to know if Jason Heyward is going to be a better player than Jay Bruce, not Jay Bruce is ranked higher because he can handle MLB pitching already.

I think people should start making their list on who has the highest ceiling, regardless of how safe it is – be confident in your opinion. If you think he’s going to be a Hall of Famer but he’s only in High-A, rank him higher than just a stud prospect who’s in Triple-A.

Also, I’ve never really thoroughly thought this out before I started typing, so there very well could be a giant loophole that I’m missing and rendering all this moot.

by beeniez on Dec 5, 2008 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you've got a pretty good grip on the concept

I probably differ slightly in my opinion, but I fully get that everybody has their own set of criteria and honestly, who am I to say which is the best method. I think you have to consider positions, projectability (SPL?), current production, age relative to league, current league level and whole host of other factors as long as each are weighted appropriately. I think that’s where most people differ. Some prefer the 5 tool guys who may not be putting up the best numbers but have the talent to become superstars while others tend to lean more towards historical performances. As long as you get the concept that no matter how good a player projects to be or how well they have performed you will never be 100% correct then you’re on the right track in my book.

by scstrato on Dec 5, 2008 7:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i yawn at anything MLB.com has to offer, and will wait until the BA list drops to make my assessment

Following the Braves...one long hard drink at a time.

by bigjoe on Dec 5, 2008 6:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Anyone watch the Hanson vid?

I’ve never seen him pitch from that camera view before. He has a looong delivery. The fastball really seems to pop, and he snaps off a great curve towards the end.

by TradeAndruw on Dec 5, 2008 7:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

(Off topic repost) Sox's fans perspective of Javier Vazquez.

Good luck with this guy. He probably likes the NL so much, because he knows he’s getting yanked by the 6th anyways. He will give you 4-7 good innings depending on whether he is utilizing his fast ball or trying to trick hitters with thigh high change ups over the middle of the plate. He gets into a bad habit of trying to throw all of his pitches when facing a batter which, can get really frustrating as a fan. I realize AJ throws down the signs and sometimes the signs come from the dugout but, in the end, Javy has the ball. I still wish him the best. So long Javy. Hello prospects!

Way to go danks

bitch can’t throw more than 130 innings a season? Trade him. He has no balls

Kenwo4life=ratings

by KenWo4LiFe on Sep 2, 2008 7:16 PM CDT actions actions 0 recs

by Where Triples Go to Die on Dec 5, 2008 7:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Heard you the first time

Anyone seen any Hanson vid besides the one on mlb.com?

by TradeAndruw on Dec 5, 2008 7:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Freddie Freeman

Reminds me of Eddie Munster

- Oh, Bobby. -

by sdp on Dec 5, 2008 10:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Neftali and Elvis

I’m trying to let this go, but click on the Neftali Feliz and Elvis Andrus profiles and grrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!

Short term thinking will kill you. The Teixeira deal was like a no money down teaser rate ARM with a double balloon payment that’s growing faster than — ah, let Dennis Miller finish the metaphor.

Grrrrrrrrrr!!!

by JimK on Dec 6, 2008 10:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

That was a bad trade

Up there with the Hampton trade as one of the worth Schuerholz ever made. 5 prospects for 1 combined year of Tex. If we have a top system now, think how stacked ist would have been if we didn’t make that trade. Salty could’ve gone to the Sox for Vasquez straight up, saving us Rodriguez, Gilmore, Flowers, and Lillibridge. Andrus could be our future 2B, or Yunel could move to second and Andrus could play short. Just imagine.

by scottyboy10 on Dec 6, 2008 9:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

seriously, how was the hampton trade bad? we gave up 2 prospects that didn’t make anything of themselves in the majors for 85 starts of mike hampton with most of the contract picked up by colorado and florida. its not as if we traded david justice, ron gant AND mark wohlers for him and he got hit by a bus and never threw an inning.

I probably care about sports way too much. Like, waaaaaaaaay too much.

by bigjoe on Dec 6, 2008 9:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

also, the idea of one of the BEST FIELDING SHORTSTOPS IN BASEBALL moving positions for a 20 year old kid who by all accounts is a complete butcher is one of the more laughable things i’ve ever read

I probably care about sports way too much. Like, waaaaaaaaay too much.

by bigjoe on Dec 6, 2008 9:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

bigjoe, I love you man. I do. But come on, this guy is clueless. It doesn’t help to respond to him, he’s only going to feel validated and post again.

by cbwilk on Dec 6, 2008 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but its so FUN! and it makes me feel really smart

I probably care about sports way too much. Like, waaaaaaaaay too much.

by bigjoe on Dec 6, 2008 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

lol +1

"We win today, that's two in a row... if we win tomorrow, that's called a winning streak. It has happened before..."

by Swo12bv on Dec 6, 2008 10:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

-1

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 8, 2008 9:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Were we not giving Feliz any chances?

“He said it: "It’s exciting to be a part of the Rangers. The trade was good for me. They are giving me a chance. I just need to keep working hard.” — Feliz on the deal that brought him from the Braves to the Rangers in return for Mark Teixeira"

by scottyboy10 on Dec 6, 2008 9:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

well, he pitched 56 innings for us and walked nearly 5/9. i don’t exactly think we gave up on him as much as it was that the rangers knew they could make something of him

I probably care about sports way too much. Like, waaaaaaaaay too much.

by bigjoe on Dec 6, 2008 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

its always frustrating for guys like feliz… he was signed at 16 i beleive… so he spent a fair amount of time in our system and didnt move up because the Braves dont rush their prospects… so it may feel to Feliz that he is just treading water. but rushing him through levels because he has sucess is not the right move, even if it ends up working… because for the majority of prospects hurrying them through the system is not advantageous

"We win today, that's two in a row... if we win tomorrow, that's called a winning streak. It has happened before..."

by Swo12bv on Dec 6, 2008 10:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs