Add new comment

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.