I "get it" (obviously), but I don't get the lack of on-field respect for Josh Lueke. Including AFL, he faced 341 batters and struck out 106 of them. Walked 18. 18! A hard-throwing strikeout ace who's never wild? The only reason not to put him in a Top 10 is you think he'll get blackballed (which Z says he won't -- and the team is even giving him some public relations assistance ... but ... on Valentine's Day? huh?), yet he's even being left off Top 20s.
Funny, but even though I was on the side of thinking Z botched the handling (and that Baker was right to question), I'm putting him 4 or 5 and others are running him off the list altogether. I would have had him at 4 if G_Money hadn't convinced me that I was being too hard on Robles. Anyway, good to see a clear-headed analysis that has Lueke near the top -- you don't dominate advanced hitters and get squeezed out of the Top 10 by teenagers who have only faced teenagers.
Moving on . . .
James Jones: unlike Pimentel/EPeguero/Morban, etc. here is a guy who has actually played professional baseball at a meaningful level and has demonstrated the ability to take a base: 10 triples, 12 HR, 62 walks, and getting better as he goes along.
Nate Tenbrink: The more I look at what Tenbrink did, and how he consolidated it with a strong AFL, the more I like the guy. The 60 BB/87 K eye ratio and the 26 SB/3 CS stand out among our advanced hitters. And here's another guy with double-digit triples.
Vicente Campos is my new fascination, after being singled out for praise from Pedro Grifol. Struck out 59 in 57 innings in the Venezuelan Summer League (vs. 19 walks) at 17 and was the winning pitcher in 8 of 12 starts. Wouldn't mean much if not for Grifol's endorsement, but it's more of a track record than Taijuan Walker's got.
And, my usual plug for Tom Wilhelmsen: I get that the age thing makes him hard to place, but he was mowing them down until he ran out of gas in his last two outings in the AFL, and the only real question was whether he could get more advanced hitters out.
=== Speak Now Or Forever Hold Yer ... Piece, Dept. ===
HQ has 1 Ackley, 2 Pineda, 3 Franklin, which (if you can believe the word actually applies) is indeed the "correct" ranking and the one which everybody and his uncle applies.
However, their 4-15 looks quite a bit different from most that I've seen. For example, HQ has Robles 13 and Triunfel 14! With explanations that are quite interesting on both players. Per HQ, the Seattle crowd has misread what type of pitcher Robles is going to be...
John Sickels, for example, puts Esteilon Peguero at #18 even in the M's own organization, writing Wild guess on grade and placement without any North American data. I refuse to buy whole-heartedly into any player this young who hasn't played against decent amateur competition based on nothing but positive-but-vague scouting reports.
HQ couldn't view Peguero more differently. Peguero is not ranked in the M's system by HQ, but is ranked in their international prospects list. Their international list goes like this:
- 1 Yu Darvish, of course
- 4 Norichika Aoki, another Japanese superstar
- 11 Hyun-Jin Ryu, Korean star
- 18 Hisashi Iwakuma, the guy the A's posted $19M for but couldn't sign
- 19 Hiroyuki Nakajima, the SS we wanted for the M's
Guess where Peguero ranked on this international free agents list? #2. Yu Darvish and then him.
... of course, the M's cut Peguero's signing bonus, leading to speculation over age and/or injury issues. The age issue is unlikely, since Peguero's birthdate is still listed as November 1993. The injury question is also nebulous and have been denied by knowledgeable sources.
Jesus Montero had his bonus reduced after-the-fact, and that didn't mean that the lad had no future in baseball...
Possible that HQ (and Sickels) ranked Peguero before they heard about the bonus reduction. But in any case, the fact that their reactions to the teenager are so different, is precisely what stirs the pot so deliciously...
..................
SSI's quick take on Peguero? Lots of guys like him have gone nowhere, but Baseball America has a video out which slo-mo's the kid's swing. Very, very few athletes move like Peguero does. His swing might be as good as Nick Franklin's. Already.
I'm more intrigued than I am skeptical. :shrug: Visually, the kid looks like a Griffey or ARod. You can see why the original $2.9M.
..................
Lots of interesting disagreements between HQ and the mainstream. Sickels, for example, has Josh Lueke #20 on his list. Lueke is sky-high on HQ's, who blithely anoint Lueke a high-DOM closer in the major leagues.
I'm assuming you know which of the two I agree with, and it's another case-in-point as to why I respect Gordon's and Deloney's judgment more than the average bear's.
Many M's who are outside HQ's top 15 are also profiled, such as Daniel Cortes, Blake Beavan, Marcus Littlewood, Ji-Man Choi, Stephen Pryor, etc.
If you have an inkling for a particular M's farmhand to nab a profile outside the 15-14-13 countdown, shout out. :- ) We'd probably run through questions before going off on our kibitz-fest.
Cheerio,
Dr D
Comments
I get where you're coming from Spec on Luuuuuke.
Career minors line: 177.2-IP; 11.4-K/9; 2.2-BB/9; 0.6-HR/9; 8.1-H/9 ..
His 2010 94/15 K/BB ratio in 63 innings is stupefying. He may be turning 26 this year, but that has to be the most minor of quibbles.
My own addition to the spec watch is also a reliever:
Career minors line: 96-IP; 10.2-K/9; 1.7-BB/9; 0.0-HR/9; 7.5-H/9; (yes, he hasn't allowed a HR yet, in his entire professional career).
His 109/18 K/BB ratio (for his career) is right there with Lueke, (albeit in fewer innings).
But, because he doesn't hit 95 on the gun, Brian Moran is basically dismissed as a prospect. The thing that REALLY sells me on Moran, however, is that he posted a 29/2 K/BB ratio in 2010 at HIGH DESERT!
The guy with the insane K/BB at High Desert in 2009? (8.0) Pineda. Moran's was 14, but he can't even get a mention most places, even at just age 21.
I'm a huuuuuge Brian Moran fan.
I think the prospect-rating types have an aversion to role players in general. They think "left-handed set-up guy" or "4th OF who can get on base and swipe a bag and play 3b in a pinch" and that's a negative. But in MLB real-world, Moran and Tenbrink will (or, are at least likely to) have more real value than the 0.5% chance that Greg Halman turns out to be Eric Davis.
Moran doesn't have great stuff, and is "only" a relief specialist, so he drops down the list.
... I have great difficulty ... no ... I simply cannot logically resolve these two realities:
K/9 = 10.2
" ... doesn't have great stuff ..."
Sorry, but *for me*, if you're fanning 10 guys a game with a knuckler, you HAVE "great stuff". But knuckleballers don't run sub-2 walk rates.
I don't there is an argument on earth that is going to convince me that ANY player running a 14 K/BB ratio (over a reasonable number of innings), doesn't have "great stuff".
Really ... where does the MPH bias end?
Fan: "Well, he's struck out every hitter he's ever faced."
Scout: "But he only hits 85 on the gun."
Fan: "So?"
Scout: "So, we'll add him to the 'other guys to watch list' ... just in case he develops some more."
Should have said "doesn't light up the radar gun" or the like. He's just wiped hitters off the map (especially lefties) in college and the minors so far, so, yes, his stuff has been "great."