John Sickels: Braves Prospect List Q&A 2010
by gondeee on Jan 29, 2010 8:00 AM EST
in Prospect Reviews
76 comments
We continue our series of prospect guru Q&A's with John Sickels of Minor League Ball. I've done a Q&A with John each of the last three years (2007, 2008, and 2009), and every year he has some great insight into the Braves minor league prospects. John publishes his annual Prospect Book every year, and there is still time to grab the 2010 edition if you haven't already pre-ordered it. The book is a great source for learning about the Braves prospects -- there are usually 30 to 40 players per team reviewed -- and it's a great resource to have on hand in case we acquire a prospect from another team.
(A) Tyler Flowers, Brent Lillibridge, Jon Gilmore and Santos Rodriguez
(B) Charlie Morton, Gorkys Hernandez, and Jeff Locke
(C) Melky Cabrera, Mike Dunn, and Arodys Vizcaino
A: I think I’d pick C. Cabrera has lots of major league experience but is still young, Dunn should be useful in the pen, and Vizcaino has an electric arm. Option A has one good prospect in Flowers, but I don’t like either Lillibridge or Gimore much at this point, and Santos is a long way away. Option B…I’ve never been a big Charlie Morton guy, and neither Gorkys or Locke look like huge impact people to me.
Q: Can Cory Rasmus come back and be a valuable major league prospect? How about Erik Cordier?
A: We need to see Rasmus at a higher level than the Appy League to get a read on that. Cordier seems to have his arm strength back, but his secondary pitches need work and he’s showing the effects of the lost time. I’d rate both as Grade C guys at this point, with some chance to develop.
Q: No longer a prospect, but what does the future hold for Jordan Schafer?
A: He needs to shake the injury rust off and 400 at-bats in Triple-A would be a good idea. I felt he was rushed ahead of schedule even before he got hurt. I don’t think he’ll be a star, but I can see him as an excellent fourth outfielder or an average regular.
Q: What is the biggest strength of the Braves minor league system? The biggest weakness?
A: The biggest strength is depth in pitching at the lower and middle levels. There have Teheran, Delgado, and Vizcaino, and there is also a large group of C+/B- type pitching prospects who could be Grade B or B+ guys a year from now: Zeke Spruill and J.J. Hoover are two favorites of mine The biggest weakness is the lack of hitting talent beyond Heyward and Freeman.
0 recs |
76 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
1 disagreement
I think that Jordan Schafer will be better then a 4th outfielder. I think the wrist injury was more of a problem then he made it seem. He had just gotten the CF job and didn’t want to lose it. Most players would have done the same thing. It is hard to judge a player based off of his performance with an injury. Get him healthy and we will see what he is really capable of.
I also think Jordan will be pretty good. Can’t really judge him by last year’s stats since he was playing hurt.
Agreed.
Sickels seems to be more cautious than most with guys who have injury issues. Can’t say that I blame him, but I think calling Schafer a 4th outfielder is a little much.
by blindsided789 on Jan 29, 2010 9:57 AM EST up reply actions
I concur.
"Everything ends badly, otherwise it wouldn't end." - Cocktail, The Movie
by lemke2blauser2bream on Jan 29, 2010 6:42 PM EST up reply actions
agree with your disagreement
the comment about Schafer was a little surprising. To characterize him as “an average regular” is a little too conservative in my opinion. Also his comments about leaving Heyward in AAA to get some more AB’s will probably bring a smile to Justin’s face. I kinda agree with this assessment as well.
I’m with keeping him in AAA to start too. I don’t think he needs to be there until July, but still.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
agreed. It seems management is ready to bring him up right out of ST.
by Andy Braves Fan on Jan 29, 2010 11:06 AM EST up reply actions
Sure, they're ready.
It’d be stupid of them to have already made their mind up as a no before they’ve even seen him. If he earns the job, why not let him stay up?
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Jan 29, 2010 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
well
for some of the same reasons I have mentioned before. AAA can’t hurt him, can only help. He hasn’t really seen a lot in the higher MiLB levels. Also, if I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t be in a big rush to start his service time either, that’s a few million dollars over a couple of months of service time.
by Andy Braves Fan on Jan 29, 2010 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
Then who do you think forms the OF until then?...
Diaz, McLouth, Cabrera, Hinske, Infante, and ???
by Mr. Sanchez on Jan 29, 2010 12:00 PM EST up reply actions
JOHNNY DAMON!
"Sometimes I wonder what'd it be like to be outside and not hear the birds chirping...I think it'd be kind of nice."
by alligatorimpersonator on Jan 29, 2010 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
If it came to it
Mitch Jones would be my next choice, if we’re not starting Heyward in Atlanta. He can play the corner spots, and also has apparently spent time at 1B. There’s at least some potential power there.
I don’t think we need a 6th OFer (barring injury, of course).
If Heyward starts in AAA, you can bet that he will be up in June. I don’t see a need for a 6th OFer in the first two months.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 29, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
except for #s 4 and 5 on there aren't really OFs...
so having one on the bench might be helpful, even if it is Gregor Blanco for defense and pinch running. With Hinske and Infante likely getting a bulk of the pinch hit chances, the need for a bat isn’t that great.
Hinske’s played more in the outfield the last 4 years. Between 06 and 09 he has 206 games in the outfield (136 in RF, 70 in LF) compared to 107 games in the infield (76 at 1B, 31 at 3B). Hinske is very clearly an outfielder at this stage in his career. In fact, he’s listed as on on the Braves’ roster.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
Schafer has never hit LHP well enough to be an everyday player. After the lost development time the last two years, he could stall out. His defense may make him an everyday guy but if he doesn’t make huge gains vs LHP in the next couple years, he just a platoon guy.
"Four of us wolves, running around the desert together in Las Vegas, looking for strippers and cocaine..."
mclouth is awful against lefties as well yet very few have ever mentioned possibly platooning him. Same goes for guys like Curtis Granderson. If Schafer can hit righties as well as expected and plays up to his talent level defensively then we’ll just have to put up with the struggles versus lefties
by McCann's the Man on Jan 31, 2010 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
Schafer has a .638 OPS vs LHP in the minor leagues. McLouth has a .711 OPS vs LHP in his major league career and actually posted reverse platoon splits his last two years in the minor leagues. Those two aren’t remotely comparable in terms of their handling of LHP and McLouth is adequate in that department, not awful.
Granderson needs a RH caddy vs LHP. That criticism is well known and he is basically a black hole by making outs 73% of the time he faces LHP. Suppose Schafer does “mature” into a guy like Granderson and can post even a .650 OPS vs LHP. These guys are liabilities at the end of games in the modern era where nearly every bullpen has multiple lefties. He will be a non-factor offensively in big situations when a lefty is brought in to pitch to him and with our lineup being lefty heavy already, our problems are compounded. I’m not saying he can’t be a contributor but he needs to make huge gains in short order to be anything other than a bottom 3rd of the order bat.
"Four of us wolves, running around the desert together in Las Vegas, looking for strippers and cocaine..."
by jeg on Feb 1, 2010 2:44 AM EST up reply actions
His grading system is wacky. I’ve just never understood the whole letter system. I guess it makes sense and is an easy way to categorize guys, but I’ve never watched a player and said, “Yeah, he’s a B, maybe a B+.” Still, I like Sickles. But yeah, disagree on the low end assessment of Schafer.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
You think
The Braves will draft for hitters next year? Or will they continue drafting pitchers
by bravesforever16 on Jan 29, 2010 12:27 PM EST via mobile reply actions
They always draft pitching.
Higher failure rate, more needed on a day-to-day basis.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Jan 29, 2010 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
I think they’ll continue to draft the best players available, like they always have.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
In what world is Mike Minor a better player than Tyler Matzek or Matt Purke or Shelby MIler? I hope we get back to taking the best player available but this ownership situation might be worse than we are considering.
"Four of us wolves, running around the desert together in Las Vegas, looking for strippers and cocaine..."
According to the Braves evaluation, he was. We’ll have to wait a few years to see if they were right in that evaluation or not.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
Also, the fact that he was a polished college pitcher with success at high level international competitions with a fairly definite ceiling that he could reach relatively quickly and they were all high risk/high reward high school arms could be an argument to the fact tht he was better.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
That’s a circular argument. You cant use the result as proof that he was the best player available. None of us have access to what went down in the Braves’ war room but every pundit and even beat writers either knew or assumed to know that Roy Clark wanted Purke. Given the organization’s history of drafting higher ceiling talent, I would have to agree with the assumption that money is the reason we passed on the 2 best prep LHP in the draft in favor of a best case scenario #3 starter with the 7th pick.
The polish argument below works only for who is the best player at present. Of course Minor as a D1 product is further along in his development than are Purke, Miller, and Matzek.
I guess this argument boils down to do you believe the press releases or the guys who claim to have insider info. I question those insiders myself but when the guys at BA, BP, and ESPN agree, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. To me, its obvious that the press releases would say that the player they took was the player they wanted for completely obvious reasons. But given organizational history and the comments from Keith Law, John Manuel, Ben Badler, and Jim Callis, I’m going to believe we drafted for signability and if you repeat that, your system starts to look like the Pirates, Astros, and Padres did, devoid of all star caliber talent.
"Four of us wolves, running around the desert together in Las Vegas, looking for strippers and cocaine..."
I guess I’m putting my belief in the history of how the Braves draft. I think they always take the guy they like best, so, in that vein, I think they liked Minor the best. I could be naive, but I know other times the Braves’ personal draft board has seemed out of whack with the general consensus. I think when they picked McCann they said they thought he was a first round talent and there was no way he was going to be there in the 2nd round. So really, the flip side of things could be true, Minor was their guy and all the pundits and experts, who certainly know what they’re talking about, simply had a different estimation of who was better.
As far as the other guys, Purke didn’t even sign, so it’s possible the Braves believed they wouldn’t be able to sign him and didn’t want to waste their pick, and Matzek was picked 11th and Miller 19th, so it’s possible they weren’t as highly thought of as most people expected.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
Your take makes sense. Its perfectly logical. The specific in this case was that Clark was denied approval of the funds it would take to sign Purke. Whether this rumor came from one place and was repeated or multiple people were told this by multiple sources is unclear. It’s a rumor from guys who don’t work in anyone’s front office so I can understand skepticism of it.
Matzek and Miller both signed for more money than Minor and both had higher demands prior to the draft. You can argue that only means that one team valued them at that price but that’s too theoretic and not rational in terms of value. Purke was asking for 7M and the Rangers tried to call his bluff but their owner’s financial situation left their offer reportedly close to 3M and Purke when to school because barring injury, he will be the most talented lefty available in 2012 and will get his money.
Either way, the Braves had at least two guys sitting in front of them with physical talents beyond Minor and with more projection left. Two of those guys were asking for significantly more money at a time when the organization was tightening the belt. I’m not saying the Braves definitely did one thing or another but there’s just so much circumstantial evidence pointing in a certain direction that I have to agree with those “insiders”.
"Four of us wolves, running around the desert together in Las Vegas, looking for strippers and cocaine..."
What I don't get is people putting a ceiling on Minor...
he’s not upper 90s and a Randy Johnson caliber P. But if he’s what he has been reported to be, low 90s with good command of 4 quality pitchers with a good work ethic and composure on the mound, I’ll take that all day long and smile.
by Mr. Sanchez on Jan 31, 2010 10:53 AM EST up reply actions
except all ive heard is the change is the only one of the 4 that grades out as a plus, or quality, pitch
by McCann's the Man on Jan 31, 2010 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
clarke wanted matzek not minor so it was definitely not a consesnsus decision here
by McCann's the Man on Jan 31, 2010 1:28 PM EST up reply actions
Taking into account our budget and Minor’s polish, they did take the best player available. The point is, the Braves aren’t going to zero in on a single position early in the draft but rather take the best options available. That’s all he was asking.
Taking into account our budget and Minor’s polish, they did take the best player available
So your saying that your taking the best player available that will sign for what your willing to pay? That is not taking the best player available at all. That’s the very definition of a signability pick.
"Four of us wolves, running around the desert together in Las Vegas, looking for strippers and cocaine..."
Go back and read the original question. It had nothing to do with signability. The question was whether or not the Braves were going to look specifically at certain positions. The answer is no. They will take the best player available to them regardless of position. I personally think they do have a more limited budget than other big draft spenders but that’s for another discussion.
Well you replied to my comment, which had diverged from the original question so I assumed you were saying Minor was the best player available at #7. Anyway, I agree that we don’t draft for position of need.
"Four of us wolves, running around the desert together in Las Vegas, looking for strippers and cocaine..."
"Excellent fourth outfielder"
Ouch.
MATT DIAZ IS THE F**K*NG MAN.
They made me change my signature...
Doesn't say much about our system, does it?
That our top prospect from just two years ago is going to be a great 4th outfielder.
Not really. He was considered a poor man’s Grady Sizemore at the time. Just because he took a stop backwards doesn’t make that an indicator of our entire system.
agreed
most prospects, even high end ones, don’t pan out. That is a universal baseball truth regardless of organization.
I can see where Sickels stands on this one too. I know a lot of TCers are upset about it, but lets be honest about the guy:
Wrist injuries speak poorly for power hitting, and can be chronic.
Schafer’s defense is good, but I didn’t see anything that reminded me of Sizemore or Andruw Jones (the 1996-2006 version) out there.
Schafer has some speed, but I am not sure it is game changing speed like an Ichiro.
Now of course, I saw him in limited play (ST and his short MLB stint). Clearly Sickels has some concerns. I hope he can be more than a 4th OFer. He very well could prove Sickels wrong (I have no idea what his ceiling is).
by Andy Braves Fan on Jan 29, 2010 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
there's that...
and outside of a great 2007, his minor league numbers aren’t anything special. They are solid, don’t get me wrong, but it doesn’t exactly scream “future star”.
When did it change from GG caliber to good?
because a year or two ago, people were calling him a gold glove caliber defender in center.
R.I.P Jazz #6
I still think he is. He looked bad in the majors, but we all know he was dealing with a severe wrist injury, and while it likely didn’t directly affect his play in the OF something like that, combined with his struggles at the plate, is bound to follow you no matter where you are.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
Nobody ever said that his injury was “severe!”
:)
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Jan 29, 2010 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
You share my concerns
Schafer worries me for a number of reasons, and until I see him put up a bunch of good AB’s in AAA, I’m not too high on him yet.
"Sometimes I wonder what'd it be like to be outside and not hear the birds chirping...I think it'd be kind of nice."
by alligatorimpersonator on Jan 29, 2010 8:27 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, this is random and there’s really no place for it, but it’s the kind of thing that must be shared on TC. I was getting some baseball cards for my upcoming trip to Spring Training and on a whim I typed in Chino Cadahia’s name. I was shocked that he actually had a card available at the shop I was buying from:
That’s a pre-FUPA Chino! Sure, he’s still ugly as sin, but he doesn’t look like a fat version of Jabba the Hut. It’s from 1987, so we know one thing for sure, the last 20 years have been hell on Chino.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
wtf kind of expression is that??
"If I have asthma, they won't let me scuba. And if I can’t scuba, then what’s this all been about?? What am I working toward??"
I’ve seen a number of cards made by that company that year and most of them look like they caught the guy in the middle of a yawn. Ah, the days before digital cameras.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
i gotta say
if you actually get this thing signed, youd be hard pressed to find another card in your collection that i would be more jealous of
"If I have asthma, they won't let me scuba. And if I can’t scuba, then what’s this all been about?? What am I working toward??"
It would definitely have some cool factor to it, but off the top of my head the Bobby Cox 69 Topps rookie card might be my favorite.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
bob...haha
i havent collected any cards in so long…i think the coolest i ever had was a 23 karat gold michael jordan card with him in both jersey numbers…but it’s not signed and obv isnt as cool as a ‘bob cox’ or chino card
"If I have asthma, they won't let me scuba. And if I can’t scuba, then what’s this all been about?? What am I working toward??"
Nice. Guess I’ll throw up a pic of the one I was talking about:
Interesting to know that the year before that, 1967, he was playing AAA for the Richmond Braves.
Also, in looking for the card I ran across the 12 that Carl Crawford signed for me a long time ago. Always good to remember the times that a guy who would become a perennial All-Star was good to you.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
So, random thought
IF (and it’s a big if) Cody Johnson manages to figure out that hole in his swing, what’s his timetable? He’s a 21 year old in AA, so is it possible that he could be on the team, or at least in consideration for a spot, in 2013?
Just looking at the payroll post, that’s the year after McLouth’s deal and Melky’s arbitration both expire. Assuming both guys stay around, we shouldn’t have any need for another outfielder beyond that, especially if Schafer works things out. It’d be nice if either he or Adam Milligan can be a third/fourth OF member for that year.
By 2012 if not 13, yeah...
for Johnson, 2012 would be say a year and a half in AA, half season in AAA and 2013 gives some combination of 3 years in AA and AAA. Milligan ended the season in Myrtle, so with 2 years until 2012 and 3 until 2013, that would give him time in AA/AAA as well.
Considering where both start 2010, I’d say the best case is one is ready during 2012; 2013 would be about pace; and if they aren’t up by 2014 people will start wondering if they’d ever make it (barring injury set backs). Also of note, I think Cody Johnson would be eligible for the Rule V draft after this year, so a strong second half in AA and we may have to put him on the 40 man roster or risk losing him to Pirates, Nationals, Royals, or any of a number of AL teams that could use him at DH.
Good point about rule 5
But even given a best-case-scenario for Cody Johnson, it’s tough to see him being drafted under rule 5 next year, so I don’t see the Braves protecting him. It seems crazy to think he could stick on a roster in 2011. He still strikes out more than Mark Reynolds against much lesser competition. That’s a problem.
As long as Cody plays well, roughly like he has the last 2 years, there’s no way the Braves don’t protect him. He’s going to be playing at AA, so unless he struggles mightily, some team is going to think he can handle the Majors, and they’d likely be right if he handles AA the way he handled A and low A.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
ya i see no scenario realistically that he isnt protected by the Rule 5 draft…he has way too much upside
Heyward,Hanson,and Shaffer r ready now!! Why do you think they havent signed the "right handed bat"?
by fatazfoot on Jan 7, 2009 8:59 PM EST
That's tough for me to see
Right now, there’s plenty of prospect rankers who think he’s a longshot to make the bigs, and don’t want to put him in their top tens. If they do, they quickly mention upside than mention the various problems he has.
To go from serious long shot to rule 5 draftee (ie, spending an entire year on a major league team) in a single season seems a bit to dramatic a shift. If he doesn’t have some crazy epiphany or get assistance from Jobu’s voodoo magic, I don’t see teams jumping on him.
For example, let’s say has a decent year at AA. He hits a little over .250, gets his OBP to about .360, slugs .540ish while knocking around 30 homers, but strikes out 150 times. That’s the kind of progress I’d love to see from him if he’s going to make it as a big-leauger. That’s also about a Major League Equivalent of .214/.299/.404, with like 175 Ks. So do you stash him at the end of your bench for an entire season based on his upside, where he can’t get regular at-bats to work on his form?
I’m not sure I see him being protected under that scenario, if there’s anyone else the Braves feel worth protecting in his place.
You have to think though, teams that pick guys in the Rule 5 draft aren’t thinking that logically. Nobody seems to worry about how a year of barely playing is going to hurt a guy. If they see a guy who hit 30 homers in AA they’ll view him as a guy they can use as a pinch hitter (or maybe a part time DH) who can provide occasional pop off the bench.
I’d be willing to be that unless Cody just plays terribly (and I’d be willing to bet that won’t happen) he’ll get protected.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
So do you stash him at the end of your bench for an entire season based on his upside, where he can’t get regular at-bats to work on his form?
Sure. Because otherwise you don’t have a chance to add him to your organization at all. You spend a year with him working with your hitting coach and, hopefully, some veterans on your roster, and then next year you can send him to AAA if needed.
If it hurts his development, oh well, you’re not the team that drafted him and spent the real money on developing him at the first place, so what do you care? You took a chance on adding an intriguing player to your system, and it only cost you a few grand and the 25th spot on your roster for a season.
This. All of this.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
And for some of the worse AL teams...
he wouldn’t be wasting as you could use him at DH. Probably not full time, but at least on occassion.
Playing "as well as he has the last 2 years" is a tricky concept...
…in moving up the ladder. If Cody puts up the same numbers in 2010 while playing in Mississippi against more advanced pitching and in a pitcher’s park, then I would say that is a definite improvement, more than just playing as well as he has the past two years.
On the other hand, if Cody merely plays as well as he has the past two years, he probably be carved up in Mississippi, hitting .200 or so with 25 HRs and 200 K’s. In that scenario, we might not protect him (although nobody would steal him either). I really hope he figures it out and doesn’t post the season Halman had in the Southern League last year. But there is just no way to tell at this point what will happen.
I think you’re reading too much into the statement. Obviously if he’s putting up about the same numbers at a higher level he’s technically playing better, but the point is he got better from 08 to 09 by putting up better number in High A than he had in Low A, though not insanely better, so if he just puts up similar numbers he’s still continuing the trend. The whole projection of how he’d do if he played the same is kind of odd and out of left field.
I wrote a novel, it's about baseball, you should buy it: https://www.createspace.com/3407939
www.dropoutproductions.com
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
