Top 30 Accountability: 16-20

This is a retrospective back on the Top 30 prospects list I wrote before the start of the season.  My opinion is that anyone who puts their opinion out there should be accountable for that opinion, in this case rather than just ask whether I was right or wrong, but more why was it right or wrong.  The goal is to explore things in the development of a prospect that can point to growth or regression.  Additionally just because a prospect fails to live up to or exceeds expectations does it mean the base analysis was wrong when it was written.

Continuing on with the next group of 5 players including a 2 relievers, 2 players who had disappointing years, and a player with decent potential in the low minors.  As always the original list lives here http://phuturephillies.com/top-30-prospects/mattwinks-top-30/2013-top-30/

20. Sebastian Valle

Valle has no real approach and just sells out for power at the plate.  This leads to a high strikeout rate with a really low walk rate.  At the major league level that approach will be completely exposed.  Behind the plate Valle is a very good receiver, but he does not have a good release making him below average against the run game despite a plus arm.  Overall Valle will need to improve greatly to have a chance as anything more than a marginal back up.

When I wrote the original piece my girlfriend took on the task of editing the entire piece.  When she got to Valle she was surprised at how negative an outlook I had on a guy that I ranked #20 on my list.  The truth is ranking Valle this high was a hedge and a bet against my own instincts based on some other opinions I had heard.  The truth is Valle’s year was better than his last but he is still barely back to 2010 level of production if you look at the peripherals.  I thought Valle might have a future as a backup, but he is no longer young and the stats are trending in the wrong direction.

19. Zach Collier

Collier had all the tools when the Phillies drafted him in the first round in 2008 but injuries and suspensions have reduced his playing time.  He looked good in Clearwater and then broke out in the Arizona Fall League.  Collier may not be a starter without a huge jump forward in tools, but he could make the big leagues as a solid 4th outfielder-a dream that may not have been possible a year ago.

I don’t know what happened to Collier this year.  The only difference in his stats was a sudden 7% spike in strikeout rate.  Collier had a better end of his year and he still has a lot of talent.  He is looking more like a 4th OFer at best at this point but he is still is fairly young (just turned 23 3 days ago), and he is at least going to get another look at AA.  We are at least a year off giving up on him but he is not going in the right direction.

18. Austin Wright

I just don’t think Wright is a starter long term.  The combination of command problems and his developing changeup really concern me.  That being said I think Wright could be a lefty reliever with more than LOOGY upside.  His stuff reminds me of Antonio Bastardo out of the pen and he could have similar upside.

I thought Wright was a reliever and they made him a reliever.  The problem is I did not expect his command to regress so much.  I still think he could be a very good arm out of the bullpen, but now that the starter dreams is done, he is going to be fighting for a spot at the back of the Top 30.  A successful AFL could do good things for his stock, especially if the stuff ticks up a bit out of the bullpen.

17. Andrew Pullin

From the reports I believe that Pullin can stick at second with average defense.  His line drive swing shows good contact ability and average power potential.  He doesn’t have star level tools but he should move quickly with a ceiling as a solid regular.  I believe that Pullin will hit and should move quickly if he can handle second.

Pullin’s walk rate wasn’t great in the GCL and it just disappeared in the NYPL.  He showed more power but the swing has some maintenance and I am less of believer in the pure contact ability.  In the field he is showing that he should be able to stick at second base as the actions get smoother.  He has gone from being in the same conversation as Green and Cozens to being in a tier below them.

16. Justin De Fratus

De Fratus has a plus fastball and slider and knows what to do with both of them.  De Fratus lacks the upside of Aumont but he is a much safer bet to be a major league reliever.  De Fratus does have dominant high leverage upside earning him a good spot on this list.

De Fratus may not have quite the upside I thought but he has really started to establish himself as a solid major league reliever.  He has plenty of raw ability and he is just starting to get a feel for getting swings and misses.  Additionally the control which was a strong point is trending in the right direction.  He may not have the value of the other guys on the list but he is in the majors and should be a solid contributor going forward.

About Matt Winkelman

Matt is originally from Mt. Holly, NJ, but after a 4 year side track to Cleveland for college he now resides in Madison, WI. His work has previously appeared on Phuture Phillies and The Good Phight. You can read his work at Phillies Minor Thoughts

71 thoughts on “Top 30 Accountability: 16-20

  1. Generally agree with the re-assessment.
    Personally, I’d hate to give up on Valle who is still young, though I see him as just a backup, who with his option years used up, is not that valuable. But with the defense adequate and possible improvement in power I could see him on a major league roster. For Phillies, I’d prefer to give that ‘backup in waiting role’ to Rupp. Not sure if Valle still has trade value but I would not want to give him away, so I’d keep him on the 40man and give him either a AAA or AA backup role again.

    Collier, Altherr, Gillies all needing 40man spots is a tough decision. Who out of this group might be useful? For Gillies still has most upside, Collier seems like least risk but only a backup profile, and Altherr still has to prove it.

    Wright is a reliever and I am not sure who much his injury affected his 2013. Not sure if he make the majors now.

    I no longer project Pullin to the majors so I am not sure where I’d rank him. I really expected him to hit well, especially at WPT. Still young and good hit well next year but he seems like a slow mover to me.

    DeFratus is not showing the setup guy stuff I was hoping so he is more of a cheap bullpen piece for now.

    1. Between Collier, Altherr and Gillies, I think Altherr is the one with the most upside, and he’s also coming off the best season of the 3. I’d protect him first and not give it a second thought. I would like to give Collier one more year in Reading or LHV to see what he’s got.

      1. Agree Handzus. Altherr is the only no-brainer and I think Collier has little chance of being selected (queue the ‘easy to hide an outfielder’ posts). If there’s room to protect Collier I would choose him second. Time for a change of scenery for Gillies though

        1. Collier is not going to be exposed to the Rule 5 draft, he would go on waivers, the only condition for another team is to have them on their 40 man roster.

  2. I thought you were a little high on Pullin when you did your lists, but really, considering who was behind him, having him this high probably wasn’t much of a stretch. He has faltered a bit, but we’ll see how much his hit tool comes around with a full year next year. He started very slowly, then hit in 14 of 16 games in July while racking up a (SSS) .375 OBP and an .823 OPS with a K Rate around 11% and a BB Rate around 7%, before going down with a fluky ankle turn injury. He was out for almost two weeks smack in the middle of a short season, and while he did show some power after he returned, (ISO .183 as I calculated it), he drew just one walk and carried a .255 OBP.

    With as much work as he’s putting in on defense to get that part of his game to come around, I find it hard to knock his hitting too much, all things considered. He’ll probably hang in my top 20-25 range.

    1. I think the fact that Pullin showed this year that he can stick at 2B signficantly softens a dissappointing year at the plate. As a result, I am comfortable slotting him in the 16-19 range

          1. You are right mds13, although zach green seems more exciting on the surface pullin has a better shot to stick in ML to some degree. He plays the middle of the field and is a lhh. Those k’s green has are tough to swallow and are going to be an issue as he moves up! Sorry George

            1. I, admittedly, am pretty bullish on Pullin. The Cutters’ manager really raves about his hitting ability and BP power and has said they were working on having him hit the ball the opposite way this season. Add that to the strides he has made at 2B as a 19 year old, and he and Crawford will be a nice middle INF tandem to follow at LWD.

            2. this game is about body size and tools, you guys should all try and go see these young kids play. obviously you havent seen green or cozens play. these young kids are men, with all kinds of tools and strength, they will play for a top division team and play everyday and play in playoff type games. small guys like pullin – its tough to make it , he could maybe be a kevin franden someday and thats fine, but he isnt very big, he isnt very strong, he cant run, has bel aver power and is very very shaky in the field. he played LF in high school because that is all the he could play. If you like pullin, that is fine, but dont put him in the same catagory with green, cozens, and crawford.

            3. Well makeup goes an awful long ways and it sounds like the cutter coach raves about pullin makeup. Hate to say it but strikeouts are strikeouts and its concerning that green does so much at a lower level. I like hrs but those k’s worry me vs mediocre stuff. Cozens not so much but green?

            4. Not sure how makeup became a factor in this thread? Cutter coaches have also raved about Green’s makeup, read the Williamsport papers. If you all read what Matt said, he said based on Pullin’s performance this year, he is now in a tier below Green and Cozens. His No. 17 ranking was BEFORE the season started.

            5. George- there is so much wrong with your post (aside from the condescending tone) that I wasn’t going to respond, but give me a break. How in the world does the fact I have Pullin in my top 20 mean that Green has to be #1. And you are certain that Cozens and Green will start in playoff games? That’s just a silly comment. (FWIW I would have Cozens ahead of Pullin. Not sure how Crawford got into this but I would have him #3. Green’s K rate is too alarming for me to get excited about but I would have him in the top 20).

              As for Pullin- not sure when 6′ 180 became small for a 19-yeard old 2B (probably good you never scouted Utley). “Shaky in the feild” wouldn’t bother me even a little bit considering he is learning a new psoiton (and, again is 19 years old and still in short season) but even that contradicts his own manager’s comments. And while the hit tool and power are developing they are most certainly there. For crying out loud he’s 15 months out of high school while making swing changes and learning a new positon

            6. Not to encourage George’s tone, but I think it’s fair to ask what about Pullin’s profile would make you rank him so high? he was a 5th round pick, recent converted to second base (“Shaky” or not, I’m going to go out on a limb and say he’s not “plus’ with the glove), has a miniscule walk rate, without much power to speak of.

              Some of the players I could see in the 16-19 range are J Pujols, A Altherr, DCozens, among other high-ceiling, questionable performance guys. There is no indication that Pullin, at this point, has high upside tools as those guys do. He seems to make decent contact, but that’s about the extent of it. Just don’t see the love. Anecdotes from a manager don’t have much heft, as far as I’m concerned

            7. Well said mds13 once again. There is no need for condescending responses we all have opinions and more importantly LOVE the Phils so save the attitude.

            8. I really don’t get your point. Even in the majors, 2B are usually on the smallish size. Comparing Pullin to a SS and a RF/1B in size and power strikes me as totally missing that point. Neither Green nor Cozens can play 2B. Everything I’ve read suggests that Pullin can stick at 2B. The Phillies drafted him with the intention of moving him to 2B, so our scouts thought he could handle 2B defensively and undoubtedly didn’t think his bat would play in LF.

            9. Just trying to help you realize that he is not a top 20 Phil’s prospect, that’s all. There are so many players a lot better than him, especially the likes of z.green, cozens, collier, quinn, crawford, altheer, drew Anderson, biddle, Franco, Morgan, knapp, j James, Murphy, walding, Giles, Watson, Dugan. That’s 17 just off the top of my head.

            10. First-no need to help me “realize’ anything. It’s my opinion. Secondly, I wouldn’t rank 5-6 of those players ahead of Pullin.

              Original Will- the reasons I like Pullin:

              -good K rates, impressive ISO, reports of a solid, short compact swing, reports of an Asche/Dugan-like work ethic, plays a premium position, no reports on fielding range but only 5 errors at 2B this year which at least suggests he probably isn’t a butcher, the brass like him and intend to keep him at 2B , only 19 years old, and a general feeling that he will develop more power.

              Now all of that will need to begin showing up statisticaly next year, particulalry in BB% and I believe it will. And to be clear I’m only suggesting a low teens ranking for him in a bad system- not that he is the future of the franchise.

            11. Pretty much all the defenses I’m seeing of having Pullin so high pretty much confirms that his ranking is getting an artificial push due to Phillies fans’ recent experience with Chase Utley. People see a dirt-bagging, lefty hitter with a short, line drive swing and see our next Utley. I see a relatively unheralded minor leaguer whose only tool that has flashed so far is the ability to make reasonable contact. That he’s still so far away, without any plus tools that we know of (I’d say maybe hit, but that tool incorporates plate discipline, which is in serious doubt with that walk rate), makes a teens ranking, even in an average to below system, way too optimistic for my money.

            12. You lost me at Murphy. I’m really not sure how you see a 28 yo 1B as a better prospect than a 19 year old.

              Pullin has enough size for his position, and seems to have enough power based on his ISO. For the most part, I agree that the guys you listed are better prospects, but if Pullin can play 2B, and it seems like he can, then it really lowers the threshold for what he needs to bring in other areas of the game.

            13. Jiwan James and Murphy are laughable as top 20 choices or guys to rank above Pullin. Age counts, so does position when assessing hitting ability. James is just about a complete washout and was demoted this season. Murphy is way too old and among the good hitting older 1B we’ve seen at Reading over the past half dozen years, Murphy really doesn’t stand out in quality.

            14. Jiwan
              and
              Murphy
              on
              your
              top
              twenty
              is
              really
              a
              desperate
              list
              IMO.
              Please
              explain
              yuor
              rational
              on
              those
              selections?

  3. I didn’t disagree with any of these rankings last season, but except for DeFratus, this is a group which really bombed out this year. The reason I have trouble ranking the Phillies farm as high as some would like to rank it is the number of guys from last year’s top 30 who have dramatically backslid or been injured: Joseph, Morgan, Watson, Quinn, and Giles in addition to the guys you have listed so far. I had really downgraded Larry Greene last season, so didn’t see his 2013 as that much of a surprise. I’m a little more negative on Biddle’s season than just about anybody else. I see Crawford as a great add to the system, as well as big step forwards for Franco, Dugan and Asche and a lesser step-forward for Cozens, Altherr, and Perkins. I like the addition of Jan Hernandez, Sandberg, and Knapp. Asche and Ruf have graduated, as has Pettibone.

    1. Chooch is a bit of an outlier, but he made the majors in his 7th professional season (2265 PAs), Valle just finished his 6th professional season (2424 PAs). While he is younger that is a lot of professional instruction and experience that hasn’t made him much better. I also have become less forgiving of the age argument for Valle because a lot of his issues are not related to physical maturity, they are related to his pitch recognition and approach, both are skills that are really hard to learn and are learned more through repetition than through pure maturity.

      1. Valle seems like he has stubbornly decided that HRs are the only stat that matters to him and so he is going to sell out for the HR. I’d be surprised if the Phillies coaches haven’t tried to modify his hitting approach. If they haven’t, then shame on them.

      2. I’ve been making a similar argument for years, but I don’t think you can entirely ignore an improvement in his K/BB ratio from 8.77-1 to 4.63-1. The latter is far from stellar, but that’s a heck of an improvement. (Yeah, he spent part of 2012 in AAA, but his AA ratio was still 7.55-1.)

  4. I don’t know what it is with DeFratus, but his stuff is so inconsistent. Some days he looks like a glorified middle reliever, sitting around 91 or 92 and having trouble throwing good breaking pitches that he can command. Other days, the velocity is 94 and 95 and he throws some nasty breaking stuff. I wonder if this is all due to inconsistent mechanics. Whatever it is, it’s odd and makes it difficult to evaluate him long term.

    1. You just said it all and in reality is not hard to evaluate long term. He cannot get big league hitters out with that kind of variance in stuff

        1. I wouldn’t be surprised if De Fratus has a solid year for the Phils. Perhaps not a K per inning guy but I think he can hold down a 7th inning gig next season. I’m still high on him

  5. If you just look at peripherals, Valle took a big step forward this year. Two questions – one, is it enough of a step forward, considering how bad he looked last year, and two, do you ignore the BA?

    It’s no secret that I tend to mostly ignore BA in evaluating prospects. Instead look at K%, and, to the extent it is available, data or scouting reports on the type of contact being made. In this case … on the one hand, his BABIP was so low that it almost had to have been at least partially bad luck. On the other hand, it was so low that it ALSO likely was an indication that he wasn’t making great contact. So I guess put at least some weight on the low BA.

    But given age/level/tools and some indication of a better approach – I think he still has a shot at a major league career as a backup. And I’m more, not less, optimistic about that than I was at the start of the year.

    1. I guess minor league batted ball data isn’t really perfect, but Minor League Central lists his LD% last year at right about 20.5% at both Reading and LHV. This year: 13%. So there’s probably something to the idea that he wasn’t making good contact as often.

    2. Larry in this case I think the terrible BB rate makes it clear Valle is a fringe top 30 guy at this point. If Valle was swinging at good pitches he’d be walking a respectable rate. A bad BB rate combined with a pooor BA strongly suggests he’s swinging at a lot of bad pitches outside of the zone. His “talent” appears to be making ok contact with bad pitches, which really isn’t a sustainable skill. Essentially he’s a non-prospect.

      1. I know I’m being a bit contrarian here, and realistically the most likely outcome is that he ends up not being a major league player, or gets a cup of coffee at best.

        But his BB rate was 5%, MUCH improved over past years, though still low. And … Reading had 2 real position player prospects in 2013, one top 3 and the other probably top 10 in the organization. Both those guys deservedly ranked that high, but both had lower BB rates than Valle – in the case of the top 10 guy, less than half of Valle’s rate.

        1. Seb Valle-379 PAs
          M.Franco-292 PAs
          K Dugan-226 PAs
          LarryM—I am surprised with you using such a large discrpeancy in sample size at the AA level for a comp in the BB rate!

          1. Walk rates don’t need huge sample sizes to normalize. And really, that many PAs is a pretty good sample for almost anything, I would think.

            1. If it wasn’t LarryM making the comp, I would be interested in hearing your rational…seems to me it would be a little little bit different.

            2. Anon, you’ll find if you look back at prior posts, when I go on about sample size, it’s generally either very small samples, or BA, which takes a very long time to normalize.

              BB’s stabilize* somewhere between 120 and 200 PA, depending upon which study you read.

              *Stabilize in the sense that they gain enough predictive power that, if you weigh them 50% and the league average 50%, you get the most accurate prediction of future BB rates.

            3. Assuming a binomial distribution, a 5% walk rate with a sample of 400 would have a 95% confidence interval of around +/- 2% (I calculated 2.1794%).

              So Valle’s walk rate this year was not statistically different from last year’s AA rate at the 95% level. In fact, it wasn’t statistically different at the 10% level either (though it was very close).

            4. For anyone who wants to do this calculation for some stat — it should work for any stat that is a percentage.

              If you observe a share of p in N observations, then the margin of error is around 2*sqrt(p*(1-p)/N).

            5. I should mention that this equation becomes increasingly inaccurate for p close to 0 or 1. It may not work so well for walk rates of 5%.

            6. Another problem might be that the set up is walk or no walk for the two outcomes. From what I gather from reading Larry’s posts he seems to advocate that how much power you have and how good of a hitter you are affects your walk rate. If this is the case then you can make the case that the central limit theorem that the calculation is derived from might not hold due to breaking of the independence assumption.

            7. The independence assumption is that successive draws are independent. That is, whether or not you walk in PA #1 doesn’t affect whether or not you walk in PA #2. That seems like an okay assumption to me.

              The point was to come up with a rough margin of error so we can determine just how different a 5% vs. 3% walk rate is in 400 PAs, not to claim that this is an exact model of baseball.

            8. Like I said it’s not a heads or tails thing. A player that grounded out the previous play isn’t going to be pitched to the same way as a player that just hit a homerun or is teeing off on the day.

              I get what you tried to do I was just trying to provide the rationale that you asked for lower from Larry

            9. You go wrong in assuming a binomial distribution.

              This stuff has been studied. Extensively. The studies are easy to find, they all have similar results, and if they have any methodological flaws I haven’t found them (and, more to the point, if anyone has found such flaws they have kept it to themselves). Now, it’s true that some people over interpret the results – saying something is statistically significant, or predictive, is not the same as saying it is a 100% accurate representation of reality.

            10. This discussion reminds me of the “Modern Major General” patter song from Gilbert and Sullivan:

              I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical
              I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical
              About binomial theorem I’m teeming with a lot o’ news,
              With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse

            11. roccom:

              Suppose you have an urn with some white and some red balls. You start drawing balls at random, write down the color, and then throw the ball back in before drawing again. Then the distribution of red balls is binomial.

              This is a common way to model yes/no outcomes, e.g. opinion polls (approve of Obama? yes/no). Here the yes/no is walk / don’t walk.

            12. So, guys, there’s no conflict at all between binomial distributions and the studies on “stabilization” statistics. (see http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=17659 for those) The binomial stats variance tells you how likely it is that a player’s true walk rate is different from the statistical walk rate. The stabilization number tells you when you can tell if a player’s walk rate is different from the average player’s walk rate. So Ramsey’s point is correct about comparing Valle’s numbers from one season to the next; we can’t be certain that the variance isn’t due to chance. But we can tell from the numbers for both years that Valle low walk rate is NOT due to chance.

          2. It is not a good SS for everything – for BA, for example, it would be a poor SS. However, BB rates normalize quickly; they are all fine sample sizes for BB rate. Obviously even so, bigger is better, but those are all big enough SSs to be predictive.

            Now, that said, there are plenty of reasons why the comps are problematic. My point wasn’t to say that Valle is just fine, or the other two rubbish they are top 10 prospects, Valle is fighting for a spot in the top 30. It’s just a way of highlighting the fact that his BB rate (and also his K/BB ratio), while still not great, are no longer, by themselves, disqualifying.

            All that said, it’s likely moot. The BABIP, the line drive rate, and scouting reports all indicate that he wasn’t making good contact this year; that on top of everything else makes him, at this point, a pretty marginal prospect.

            1. It’s not so much that walk rates “normalize” quickly, it’s more that walk rates span a much wider range than batting averages among baseball players. So you can tell more quickly if a player is any good at drawing walks.

    1. Question – did you just now come around to that conclusion on Hewitt, and if so, why are you so quick to give up on Greene? I think Greene deserves at least as much leash as Hewitt had, or at least close to it, as he has been able to take a walk and has prodigious power potential. Hewitt had power potential (less than Greene, I think is fair to say), plus speed in his corner. They’re by no means comparable players, but to me, they’re fairly similar in prospect-worthiness at level.

      I will likely keep Greene in the mid 20s, on the possibility that he develops better pitch recognition and the in-game power shows up as he does. Assuming he is promoted, if his Ks come down significantly (maybe to around 25-27%), and he hits 15-18 HR in CLR, that’s a prospect. I have little hope of this, as 2013 scouting doesn’t seem to think he’s got much chance to figure it out. If his 2014 isn’t a marked improvement over 2013 in both K Rate and power, I will likely give up next off-season and consider him no more than an org guy. If he still strikes out over 30%, but manages a bunch of homers, you could make a case for him as a bench bat/AAAA type guy, I suppose. At that point, his position/fielding become even more important, as he’d be fighting with 1B types with better hit tools and experience at the position if he can’t manage in the OF.

      So I guess my point is that it’s too early to call him a bust, but he does seem to be trending towards it.

      1. The sooner this org cuts ties with high round failures, the better. They logjam the development of the younger but perhaps unkown quantities that could flourish with more challenges.

        1. I can’t think of a single prospect that the presence of Hewitt or LGj has negatively affected. It’s not as if the Phils have been teeming with great OF prospects over the last several years.

      2. No, I have given up on Hewitt a while ago, and Valle I gave up on last year. I can see why you would want to give LGjr. more time but imo he is done. Big time power potential with not even moderate power shown in games. Too many strikeouts and i’m going to guess he ends up moving to 1st base.

  6. The key for LGJ will be to see what kind of shape he comes to camp in next spring. He was very clearly never in great shape this year and that hurt him. On top of that, he has to learn how to get ready earlier to handle a fastball. He has lots of work to do but its too early to give up on him. However, the book on Hewitt, Collier and Gillies is pretty much written and its a short story unfortunately. Valle, as a catcher, gets a little more rope…

  7. Murry just wondering how do you know he was out of shape?? how do you know he has the ability to handle a fastball. after two years of not doing anything but collecting his bonus. he had question from the day he was drafted, and we were stupid enough to take him so high, he is not t hat different then high school, no bat speed and fat,

    1. Lol – Murray is actually right. I was at ST and Greene was clearly out of shape – I think Murray was there too. Also I’ve seen Greene hit and currently he can’t even handle an ok fastball. The criticisms are legitimate.

    2. If you’ve seen the guy, you know he’s out of shape (plus they kept him in Florida to get in better shape) plus he obviously struggles with good fastballs but I think he can improve with hard work. The kid has talent but he hasn’t shown the desire to work hard yet and without it, he’ll never get anywhere. Cozens on the other hand…..

  8. Not sure where to post this, but interesting note about Franco in the BA POY chat:

    Phil (Philly): Wow! Maikel Franco was not even considered. Any Reasons why?

    John Manuel: I’m not sure why you would think he wasn’t considered. He wasn’t a finalist; our last two were Buxton and Springer, those were the guys we debated the most. But Maikel Franco certainly had one of the best seasons in the minor leagues. I’ve been working on our Florida State League top 20 prospects list, and he’s going to rank very highly in that league. Scouts who have seen him the last couple of years come away very impressed with the improvements he’s made. I know he’s played some 1B, but the scouts and managers I’ve talked to like him as a profile 3B with power and feel for hitting. He’s a potential star.

    I think this is the first time i have seen an national guy say he is a potential star.

    1. This is good news because (I think) Franco did not make BA’s mid-season top-50, making them relatively low on him.

    2. That’s pretty impressive coming from Manuel. I especially like the part of him staying at 3B where he’ll have the most value. Spring training should be lots of fun.

Comments are closed.