Reader Top 30; #17

2009 Reader Top 30

Drew Naylor took home spot number 16 in closely contested voting. Mike Stutes made a nice surge, no doubt helped by his positive press in the BA chat. Anthony Hewitt also received 5 write-in votes, so he enters the voting. We’re going to keep motoring along with the Top 30, when we finish I’ll have a few comparison pieces on certain prospects, and then I hope to unleash my Top 30 sometime in early February. For now, let’s get to #17

01. Carlos Carrasco, RHP
02. Lou Marson, C
03. Jason Donald, SS
04. Kyle Drabek, RHP
05. Michael Taylor, OF
06. Dominic Brown, OF
07. JA Happ, LHP
08. Travis D’Arnaud, C
09. Joe Savery, LHP
10. Zach Collier, OF
11. Jason Knapp, RHP
12. John Mayberry Jr, OF
13. Edgar Garcia, RHP
14. Antonio Bastardo, LHP
15. Julian Sampson, RHP
16. Drew Naylor, RHP
17.

66 thoughts on “Reader Top 30; #17”

  2. I’ll have a rare turn at being influenced by the media, go off the reservation on what I have issued before, and switch to Mike Stutes at this position. The scouting report is impressive, and Stutes just might win here, anyway.

    Like

  5. agreed Marfis. great report. if it is true, he probably deserves to be much higher on the rankings. proving yet again, that Baxter is the man!

    Like

  7. I voted for Worley given he’s a year younger than Stutes…Valle is still only showing 2 votes. Maybe there’s a glitch?

    Like

  8. Worley. Best combo of performance and projection. Could be a valuable setup guy eventually or a #4/5 starter. And he has shown some very good, even dominant performance in Low A. To me, that gives him a leg up. Stutes is also in that category, but I flipped a mental coin.

    Like

  11. I’m gonna go with Erich’s approach, since Cisco doesn’t seem to be getting any votes. Stutes is my vote (I had him one behind Cisco anyway, so flipflopping the two is no biggie)

    – Jeff

    Like

  12. what did the BA chat say about stutes? I dont get a chance to scour the coverage like some of you but i would love to hear what is being said.

    Like

  14. I was reading about recent draft. Swimmer was a 14 round choice. It said he signed for 5 thousand. Is that slot for that round seems low to me.

    Like

  16. dwildcat,
    Basically John Manuel said that Stutes’ fastball was up to 95 in pro ball and that he worked off it much more than he had in college. Pair that with a great slider and Manuel said he looked like a solid 4 and maybe even more than that. If you look at his numbers from last year they really are awesome.

    Like

  19. Went with Worley here. John Manuel mentioned in his chat that “he’s got a chance to be a durable innings-eater, so he won’t be moving to the pen anytime soon.”

    Like DiamondDerby said, it’s close between Stutes and Worley here, but I lean towards Worley for a few reasons: (1) he’s only 20 years old; (2) he’s exhibited better command. No, he didn’t post huge K numbers, but in combination with his control and ground ball tendencies, he’s established quite an impressive profile. I’ve said it before, but if Julian Sampson repeated Lakewood and put up the following line next year…

    61.1 IP — 7.78 K/9 — 1.03 BB/9 — 56.7% GB — 2.81 FIP

    …we’d be moving him into our Top 10 immediately. Well that’s what Worley did in his Age 20 season, and while I know that the comparison isn’t perfect (because Sampson comes from a cold weather state), I think the point still stands.

    Like

  20. I voted for Stutes after (I think) sitting out #16.

    At this point I really have no idea other than intuition and looking at numbers. Everyone among the current candidates seems like a decent option, other than maybe Berry who seems like a textbook Rexrode Threshold guy. I’ll be surprised if he does well at AA; the absolute best-case scenario for him would involve growing up to be Chris Roberson.

    I also have a hunch we’re undervaluing Hewitt, but it’s understandable given the organization’s experience with Jackson, Taylor, Golson et al.

    Like

  22. Everyone is so down on Hewitt, and I can certainly understand that, but… he was our #1 overall pick last year, we may not agree with the phillies exactly, but they couldn’t have been “that” far off when they evaluated his talent/potential. There is no way the phillies farm system is so good that someone drafted in the first round won’t make our top 16 players…

    Like

  23. Supra: I think everyone is pulling for him, but waiting to see some improvement or performance before ranking any higher. Right now he is a lottery ticket for $100 million. You hit it, you win huge, but what are your chances? Every time he improves in a year his chances go up, but I can’t see ranking him above some of the guys we are talking about. He is still a copule of positions away in the ranking, IMO.

    Like

  24. I went with Valle. But I was looking at the list of guys and I had no problem with anyone of them in this slot except possibly Hewitt. Hewitt has huge potential but everything about him, age, experience, where he played in HS etc, says he won’t go very far. I hope not. I hope he kicks into a higher gear and we’re talking about top 10 next year. I’ll admit it if I’m wrong.

    Like

  25. I too was influenced by the media for the first time in this voting – this time by BA which had Hewitt in it’s 12-15 range. He really is a freak with unbelievable potential, and frankly the guys left up on the board don’t really invoke enough passion for me to ignore this toolshed.

    One comment on the post by Bellman: why do his age and experience and where he played in HS go against him? All of those indicators show that he SHOULD struggle initially. Good coaching and increased reps year-round should help him adjust, as compared to a kid out of Southern California who struggles in his debut. Being 19 vs. 18 should be little or no factor – the Phils aren’t basing their pick on physical projection (he already has the MLB body), and he really has the experience level of a 15 year old in SC. He will probably need all of his option years to become full-time (7 years), which means he debuts around the same age as Utley and Howard did. Hewitt has a LONG way to go, but I think the upper-teens for a first round pick with unlocked tools is about the right spot to be placed.

    Like

  26. Cisco had a great season and he’s grown up among pitching gurus. He gets my vote here.

    Thanks for the props yesterday, H Man!

    Like

  27. Hewitt definitely needs to be in the top 20. Our system is a lot stronger than everyone thought. The fact that he hasn’t made it yet shows that. I think the only mistake so far is Mayberry Jr.

    Like

  29. Having seen Valle in spring training last year, I don’t understand all the love thrown his way. He’s too small to be a major league catcher although he’s a terrific leader and a decent hitter so far.
    I vote for Hewitt again. Many of you are down on Hewitt which I get based on his performance last year but every team ranked him as a first round pick based on his raw ability. There is a lower liklihood that he’ll be successful but there’s a greater chance that if he is successful that he will be a star level which is what the big club needs. Major league relief pitchers are nice to have but you need a #1 and #2 starter, a closer, and a few hitting stars to win.

    Like

  30. Murray,
    Valle is 17 years old. That’s got to be a huge consideration here.Of course he’s not physically developed yet. He’s going to fill out that frame. At 17 years old, he more than held his own in the GCL. He won’t be 18 until halfway through the 2009 season. I think that’s more than worthy of a top 15 spot.

    I really like Stutes and I see him falling anywhere from the 10-15 spot on our list, but I’m still wait and see on him. The stuff is obviously there, but his Williamsport and Lakewood lines are better than any lines he put up in college. That’s obviously a good thing for us, but it does bring out my natural skepticism. It’s great to see the awesome reports on him, but I’m tempering my expectations as of now.

    Like

  31. I get the he’s show crap, IN LESS THEN 100 AB’S!!! That’s my thing, I still got this guy in my 13-15 range until after another good 400 ABs. At that point, if he’s still putting up numbers like he did in his first 100 AB’s I drop him to 23-28, if it happens an additional time he’s off my radar.

    …

    One point regarding the Phils overall system, we need a centerfielder who hits .290 30 hr with good range and arm. we need 1 blue chipper (think 5 stars) in our system and that’s what i’d like him to profile as. If you evaluate the overall system in 3 groups, Infielders/Outfielders/Pitchers our weakest link is clearly outfield which really shouldn’t be that difficult of a spot to fill. The big league club has an ace, they have mvp players in their infield, but the outfield, weak…

    Like

  32. One thing about college pitchers coming in and doing well is that you always have to remember the metal bat factor. Those things are ridiculous and turn double plays into hits, and pop ups into homers quite often. I am buying on Stutes as a solid 4 and possible 3.

    Like

  33. I agree with you on the metal bats, but I’m still a little bit skeptical. Every other college pitcher faces metal bats, but manage to put up better statistics than Stutes did. Maybe it’s something with his pitching style that isn’t suited for metal bats, but I’m still going to hold off on any excitement.

    I think your assessment on him is spot on though. In fact, on my list I’d have him higher than he is here.

    Like

  34. I went with Galvis, obviously because of what the reports on his defense are. If it’s true that he’s just about assured to be a major leaguer because of his glove alone, then he deserves this spot since he’s got so much time to improve his bat as well.

    I’ve got Valle and Worley as my next two in some order. Galvis over Valle because while Valle’s numbers were good in the GCL, they werent great and I just don’t put a ton of stock in short season performances.

    Like

  35. One thing on Stutes though is he dramatically increased his fastball. That should be sustainable and make him a better pitcher than he was. Baseball America has a great write up on him in a John Manuel Q & A. It is pretty special to have a prospect from the 36th round.

    Like

  36. One theory I’ve read on metal bats and pitching: They affect guys that throw inside far more than guys that nibble on the outer corners. The theory goes like this (rough paraphrasing): Metal bats increase bat speed and allow hitters to at least foul off anything inside as well as provide a bigger sweet spot. Thus pitchers become afraid to pitch inside in college and never really learn how. Therefore, when guys that can locate on the inner half of the plate get to professional ball, they are suddenly able to pound the inside of the plate as the same pitch that would be blooped in for a hit in college will break a wooden bat in pro ball. Thus the pitcher suddenly has a huge advantage if he isn’t afraid to pitch inside.

    Like

  37. Galvis.

    He’ll need to hit, but his second half was encouraging, as he finally got his slg over .300.

    He’s really young and not strong. His walk rate isn’t horrible. If he gets stronger, he might just be an all star.

    Like

  39. I’m staying with my Aussie mates.

    Why not Brad Harman???
    Already played MLB and in 40 man.

    What is the limitation on being called a prospect as opposed to making the 25 man?

    Like

  40. When do players like Hewitt, Carpenter, Slayden, and Gose get on line.. See that Stayden gets an invite, that should count for something.

    Like

  42. PHL – I think we are using the criteria for Rookie of the Year voting. Once someone has 130 at-bats, 50 IP or 45 days on a ML roster they do not qualify for our purposes, although with someone like Happ some people didn’t consider him although he qualified by the above criteria.

    Also, his cup of coffee aside Harman had a tough year. I thought he’d have a break out year last year. Hopefully he’ll bounce-back this year.

    Like

  43. Harman is a bit of a tough call for his ranking – he did have a bad year with regard to his average, but he showed decent pop, and is a plus fielder at two positions. I’m sure he could make a Major League club and have a Bruntlett like contribution (with more power and less speed), yet he may not crack our top 30. I have him ranked 26th on my list, and I’m thinking he should maybe be a couple slots higher.

    – Jeff

    Like

  45. I will be very surprised in Harman cracks my top 30. Let’s think… Carpenter, Hewitt, Mattair, Stutes, Correa, Valle, Worley, Galvis, Cisco, Slayden, Brummett, and Berry. That is just off of the top of my head and leaves me at 28. Since I am sure that I am forgetting at least two players, I doubt Harman makes it.

    Like

  47. ****NEPP, you have that theory on metal bats exactly correct. Right on the money.****

    Good to hear. It was in an article I read a few years back about how modern young pitchers don’t pitch inside anymore and about possible reasons why. I wasn’t sure if I was remembering it exactly right.

    I like Harmon alot as a prospect if only for his glove and powerbat. If he can learn some pitch recognition he’d be a very good utility guy.

    We really do have a nice deep system suddenly. Do we have Wolever to thank for that?

    Like

  48. Correa isn’t going to make my top 30 after being sent home for all of last season. Who knows if we will ever see him stateside again, and if we do, he has lost a full year of development. Still gotta consider Leandro Castro, DeFratus, Rizzotti, Shreve even though he will not pitch til mid-year in all likelihood, Cosart, May, and Overbeck. I’m not as big on Durant as some folks.

    Like

  49. At this point on the list its going to be hard to ignore Hewitt’s extremely raw potential. All the scout’s say that if he ever pulls it all together we have an a-rod on our hands. However, he clearly didn’t deserve to be in the top 15 as he is nowhere close to reaching that potential. We may all be down on him, but the kid only had 100 ab’s. Lets wait for a larger sample size before we label him a bust.

    Like

  50. The theory on pitching inside by NEPP is something not very well known to the average baseball fan. One hitter off the top of my head to prove his point is Jacoby Ellsbury, because he seems to have problems with that inside pitch and his average isn’t like it was in college when he could bloop that pitch into the outfield for a single and hit in the high .300s.
    A college pitcher with a nice K rate, low BB rate, pitches inside and gives up a too many hits is a perfect example of Justin Masterson. Those dinky hits in college have now turned into broken bats in the pros. He moved to the majors fast, too.

    Like

  51. Could our #1 pick from this past year not even make the top 20? Not saying it’s wrong, but it’s certainly interesting.

    Like

  52. I think Harmon has a spot at the back-end of the top 30. Although I used to be a big Brummett fan his AFL performance put him behind Harmon in my mind.

    Hewitt’s spot is coming up soon. He has out of this world upside, but it’s so far away and still so much in question at this point. I know 100 AB’s isn’t a lot of judge him on but those 100 AB’s reinforced the questions about him that were evident before the draft, so I view those as part of the larger piece of evidence that he has a long way to come with the stick.

    Like

  53. There’s a good passage in one of the Bill James abstracts that reinforces what NEPP said. James cited the use aluminum bats in college as one of the major causes of the increase in ML homers. “Young pitchers used to be taught to work inside, to jam the hitters. You can’t teach that in amatuer ball now, because it doesn’t work with aluminum bats.”

    Pitchers started throwing outside more with it being the lesser of two evils. The batters, with aluminum bats, learned they could drive the ball with power to the opposite field. Opposite field homers tripled between 1987 and 2000, largely because pitchers were no longer pounding the ball inside at amatuer levels and carried those bad habits to the professional level.

    Like

  54. I guess it all depends on how we’re doing this thing. Are these the top prospects in the system or are these prospects “we think” are going to the show the soonest?

    Like

  55. halophan —
    I think it should be a combination of things. If we quantify talent numerically, a guy who will achieve a major league talent level of 100 and will arrive in 2009 with 99% certainty is worth more than a guy with talent level of 100 who will arrive with 99% certainty in 2013, both because of net present value (you get more in trade for the guy who will arrive quicker, because nobody wants to wait a long time to get their benefit) and because the Phillies are a contender now and need help sooner (while the core is still intact) more than later.

    But, it goes beyond that. If based on tools scouting plus observed on-the-field performance with just ‘normal’ projection with time from now until the majors, the guy in AAA that we think will have major league ability of 100 is worth a lot more than the guy in rookie league that we think will have major league ability for an additional reason. That reason is that the odds of the AAA guy making it to the bigs with level of talent may well be 99%, but the guy in rookie ball can’t be more than perhaps 50%, because he has so much more chance for injury in minors, so much more chances to slide below ‘normal’ growth curve, so many more questions to be answered. This is especially true of pitchers and hitters ‘expected’ to develop power as they mature.

    For a guy like Hewitt, there needs to be a much bigger discount, since there really is no on-the-field positive performance. He is 100% projection based on tools. Plus, although he is a year older than the normal HS recruit in GCL, his performance is worse and he is rawer. So, his potential major league performance may be ‘ceiling 200’, but we have to realize that the estimate of his major league talent ‘if he develops normally and avoids injury’ is far less acccurate than for a less raw guy in GCL who put up good numbers. And, I agree the 100AB should not be overestimated, but even good performance in 100 AB (see Golson, D’Arby Myers) doesn’t necessarily give an accurate measure of major league potential or high odds of achieving that potential.

    So, in the end a guy in AAA like Happ with a good level of talent ranks well ahead of a guy like Hewitt. He may really rank ahead of a guy like Collier too, but, if anything, we downgrade the merely good guy at AAA too much and give too much credit to the flashy tools kid in rookie league. In some years as I put my top 30 together, I simply refused to consider guys who hadn’t played in a full season league. In many ways that is more realistic, but not the way BA and BP work, so it leaves me out in the cold and I dropped it.

    Like

  56. allentown-

    Thanks for your response. I don’t know if you’ve helped me or confused me more ha ha. I am very bias to pitching so I’m voting for Stutes. I like the numbers he’s put up thus far & can’t wait to see what he does @ Clearwater next year. Worley is right behind him & I think the Hi A staff is going to be money. I’m more pumped about the arms in the system & am wondering which ones will end up as “trade bait” in the future. With Philly now considered a contender & improving their minor league arms you just never know?

    Thanks again AT

    Like

  57. Atown, I asked some of the folks I know working for the team and to the man they would not discuss Correa. In fact Mr. Noles kind of gave a ration if you get my drift. I hope he comes back but I think he gone to work with Bruno Doy, remember him.

    Like

  58. “In some years as I put my top 30 together, I simply refused to consider guys who hadn’t played in a full season league. In many ways that is more realistic, but not the way BA and BP work, so it leaves me out in the cold and I dropped it.”

    You really have to consider all prospects in a system. How silly would a pre-season Rays list have looked without David Price?

    Like

  59. Would David Price even be eligible for such a list…from what I remember of the WS broadcast, he is already in the HoF. At least that’s what you’d think from the way Buck and McCarver were gushing about him.

    Like

  60. Alan —
    Yes, Price is an excellent example of why I stopped. But Hewitt is an excellent example for excluding new draftees, if they are raw HS kids. For the toolsy, raw HS kid it is hard to distinguish a Golson, Myers, Brown, Hewitt. Golson got all the props as the #1 pick and most athletic prospect in the nation, but Brown seems the better prospect. Myers and Brown are proof you can load up on these high risk/reward raw, super-tools HS position players, without even expending a 1st or 2nd round pick. So, how does one realistically rate Hewitt at this stage?

    Like

  63. allentown, I think that’s where a team or publication needs faith in its scouts to identify raw talent without the benefit of raw data. Think of how a team’s scouting department must sift through thousands of these types before the draft. You can rate Hewitt, but it takes a bit of knowledge about that class of player.

    “off the topic but does anyone know the 8 phillie minor leagers invited to roster tryouts? i know donald is one but i missed the other names.”

    http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/team/roster_nri.jsp?c_id=phi

    Like

  64. I have detailed rosters of IronPigs and R-Phils candidates for this season. I have player reports, projected AA and AAA rosters, and continuous updated 40-man roster posts. Just search topic or player

    lvironpigs.wordpress.com or goironpigs.com

    Like

  65. Alan —
    I agree that you need to trust the scouts and think we have well above average scouts. Still — the round a guy is drafted is a combination of how much publicity/demand from other teams he’s got, what it will take to sign him, and scouting report. All these guys are longer shots than more developed, performance-based over tools-based guys. So, does it really follow that a Golson or Hewitt is a solid first round talent and head and shoulders above lower round projections like Brown and D’Arby Myers? Throw into the mix guys like Jeff Jackson and Reggie Taylor.

    Like

Comments are closed.