As nicely summarized by Jay Yenich:
1) Michael Pineda, RHP, Grade A
2) Dustin Ackley, 2B, Grade A-: Borderline B+
3) Nick Franklin, SS, Grade B: Borderline B+
4) Taijuan Walker, RHP, Grade B-
5) Mauricio Robles, LHP, Grade B-
6) Alex Liddi, 3B, Grade B-
7) Guillermo Pimentel, OF, Grade C+
8) Johermyn Chavez, OF, Grade C+
9) Kyle Seager, 2B, Grade C+
10) James Jones, OF, Grade C+
11) Dan Cortes, RHP, Grade C+
12) Marcus Littlewood, SS, Grade C+
13) Ramon Morla, 3B, Grade C+
14) Nate Tenbrink, 3B-OF, Grade C+
15) Ji-Man Choi, C-1B, Grade C+
16) Blake Beavan, RHP, Grade C+
17) Vince Catricala, 1B, Grade C+
18) Esteilon Peguero, SS, Grade C+
19) Stephen Pryor, RHP, Grade C+
20) Josh Lueke, RHP, Grade C+
Read the whole thing, and comments, here: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/1/4/1913127/seattle-mariners-top-20-prospects-for-2011 -- and Jay's commentary here: http://www.marinersminors.com/2011-articles/january/sickels-top-20-prospects-for-11.html
The A with no minus is a rare ranking and indicates Sickles is a strong believer that Pineda will be an MLB impact player. There is much Ackley discussion in the comments, and Sickles comes in to justify the A- (from some commenters' belief that it should have been B).
My two cents worth:
can't believe he left out poythress on this one. does he mean to say that the guy that led milb in rbis does not even crack the M's top 20? other people doesnt care about the rbis now adays, but poythress' peripherals is still quite good. it is not his fault that he is playing in high dessert
The crew at ProBall NW are rolling out their prospect reports as well, starting today with infielders -- Ack and Franklin at the top, of course.
http://www.proballnw.com/01-2011/2011-mariners-prospect-report-infielders/
I'd have Ackley over Pineda. Ackley is a very solid A- in my mind, borderline A.
Pineda is someone I'd cash in right now. His stock is sky high and hes an injury waiting to happen with that delivery.
I agree, Ackley is a good A-, but that's based on a belief that power will come and the average will be good. I can come up with reasons (or make excuses) why that will happen, but Sickels is a believer that it will as well because he's still an A- in John's book too. However, Pineda was far more dominant at AA than Ackley, so I have no problem with the rankings.
I would trade Pineda before I'd trade Ackley, but that's because all pitchers are injury risks, and he's more likely to miss significant time or become useless than Ackley is.
Still, pitching risk is not the same as pitching doom.
Jeff Nelson threw 1460 innings with a motion that should have landed him on the DL immediately.
Kevin Brown had a potential HOF career with a crazy, effort-laden motion that got him injured. He threw 3570 innings as a pro, with 11 seasons over 180 IP and 7 over 210.
Let's not go into what Lincecum's motion has netted him.
Pineda may have the sort of arm that can survive his pitching motion for thousands of innings. Or he may go Liriano/Pryor on us and fizzle out spectacularly.
Currently, I don't see how his "sky high" stock would add us anybody we want who can compete with the immediate #2 potential of Pineda. Who would you try to get with Pineda as the major chip?
If we'd been able to land Upton for him, I was willing to do that as I'm sure you were. Since they apparently wanted Pineda + Upton + Smoak that wasn't in the cards.
I don't see how we get our money's worth for him in trade. If he works out he's a bonafide TOR starter. If he breaks he's worth practically nothing for at least a few years. And other teams know that too, which is why it's really rare to see a prime player traded for any one pitching prospect. Teams hedge their bets by getting handfuls of pitchers and hoping one can stay healthy, or by combining them with hitting prospects.
I can't see who Pineda would get us as a headliner. It'd be a prospect package. I'd still do it for the right guy, but unless I can get Rasmus or someone I don't see how it works out in our favor. We have plans for all our up-and-coming hitters - there's no surplus yet. And we're years away on starting pitchers not named Pineda or Robles to boot. I don't see how you cash him in at this point for fair value.
That's the risk with starters. I remember the Dodgers hating Pedro Martinez's motion (and build) so much they traded him for Delino Deshields. They figured there was no way his body would hold up to the rigors of 200 innings a year.
And they were right, he got injured and broke down and lost several MPH off his fastball.
While that was happening he was just the most dominant pitcher in baseball. *shrugs* I can say I don't like a guy's motion, but I've given up trying to predict injury based on a checklist.
Some guys have terrible mechanics and throw for decades, and others have perfect mechanics but get hurt anyway. It's a crapshoot.
I wouldn't give current-mechanics-Pineda Felix's extension, but I'm more than happy to let him throw for me as a $350k player and try to smooth some things out while he destroys RHBs for me.
~G
Some guys are just durable, and its hard to say definitivety who is doing more damage to their arms. Still, Brown and Pedro weren't anywhere near as bad as Pineda as far elevating the elbow. Lincecum actually has good mechanics IMO.
I'd consider talking to the Yankees about Jesus Montero. A Pineda+ for Montero trade makes some sense. The Yanks are loaded in SP specs, but none of them are MLB-ready like Pineda. Their offense at the MLB level is loaded, but they're thin on high-end SP for the first time in a while.
Way behind the Royals, who are set to dominate the universe beginning about 2014. (Maybe.)
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/6763/royals-prospects-top-th...
Those C's and C+'s are so quick-and-dirty that any math based on them is bound to be measuring photons with a yardstick...
The number of C+'s (vs. B-'s) may be more a reflection of Sickels' subconscious beliefs about systems rather than finesse knowledge of the prospects...
Why would a judgement of the overall farm system need to be sub-concious. IMO, not only should the quality of the system be *a* factor in judging any prospect -- but historically, it tends to be a significant factor.
There are many organizations which seem to "consistently" develop more prospects better and/or faster than other organizations. There are some orgs that consistently under-perform the norm.
Regardless of the CAUSE ... (talent assessment or player development) ... if top 10 organizational prospects for Cleveland or Atlanta succeed at a 20% rate, while the same top 10 for Seattle or Pittsburgh only succeed at a 10% rate, (just to make up numbers for illustrative purposes), then it is not only reasonable to take organizational success into account -- but the place for it to most readily show up SHOULD be in the "C" arena, not the "A". It's actually hard to "screw up" a Griffey or AROD or Hayward.
I injected the chart (http://redsminorleagues.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/sickelsfarmrankin...) into the mix, so I think I'll add a few more comments:
First of all, it is all based on Sickles' opinions, so assigning dollar amounts with decimal points is making it look a lot more "math-y" than it really is -- it's just summarizing Sickles ratings and assigning values to them instead of letter grades.
Nevertheless, political scientists (the field with which I am most familiar) have found that ratings by Stuart Rothenberg, Charlie Cook and Larry Sabato as to which seats are most at-risk, "toss-ups", "leaners" etc. actually do provide a very good indication of which seats actually are at risk, and they find value in quantifying them and incorporating them into their models. So what this guy is doing is not really out of line so long as you understand what's being done.
The biggest flaw, upon reflection, is that only the top 20 players are included, but there might be a whole slew of "C+" guys that aren't in the top 20. As mabalasek points out -- Rich Poythress, for example. Nate Tenbrink is #17 so he "counts" but Poythress is #21 (or whatever) so he doesn't.
So it looks like the Ms lead the league in C+ hitters with 10, but those are just the guys who landed in the top 20. We may have 15. Or 30. And so might the Rangers, even though they only had two in the top 20.
Nevertheless, generalizing, it is true that the Ms have lots of hitters up and down the system that "could be" B-grade or, in the case of E. Peguero, even A-grade prospects (using Sickles' system) -- we just don't know yet. And the chart does help put that in focus. Right now, Pimentel, Chavez, Choi, Jones, Poythress (it really is a long list) -- they're all C+, and that's fine. I think most of them will have a better chance ultimately than the B- Liddi, but we'll have to see.
Sandy's point is worth taking, though, too -- historically, the Ms have done a very bad job of turning solid prospects into actual MLB hitters.
Likewise, generalizing, it is true that the Royals are stacked. But their history can't be ignored either.
What *IS* the norm, anyway? I ask myself that question perhaps more than any other. Because I really don't know what 'normal' is in regards to prospect success rates.
But, a quick (and unscientific) glance at ONLY 1st round picks of the 21st century, (really only covers 2000-2006, because almost nobody from 2007 has generated MLB stats yet) - how do KC and Seattle compare?
KC - 15 total picks (thru 2010). 6 have MLB time.
Greinke - 22.8-WAR; Mitch Maier 1.6-WAR; JP Howell 3.6-WAR; billy Butler 5.0-WAR; Alex Gordon 4.0-WAR; Hochevar (-0.6 WAR). Five of six with positive war.
Seattle - 12 picks -- 5 have MLB time.
Mayberry (-0.4 WAR); Adam Jones 7.7-WAR; Clement (-1.2 WAR); Morrow 3.5 WAR; Mangini (-0.1 WAR)
Jones and Morrow the only success stories - both traded - both producing for somebody else. Morrow generated 2.0 WAR before leaving. That is the ONLY positive WAR Seattle has received of *ANY* 1st round player drafted during the 21st century.