Happy Friday. I don’t have a lot of time today, so only two writeups but we’re in the lower levels now, so most writeups will be shorter, because there’s less of a history to discuss. After I finish the rest of the grades, I’ll be posting a summary of all the grades based on position, and I’ll open it up to final suggestions and tweaks. I’m also working on a prediction equation to try and come up with more exact predictions to replace the lame guesses I made in my Top 10 Prospects writeup. But, here are today’s entries.

Milner, Gus, OF (age 22) Grade = C+

Milner, a 14th round pick in 2006, had a decent campaign at Batavia, posting a .725 OPS, which isn’t great, but was still about 24% above league average, all things considered. Milner despite being HUGE, (6’5, 240 lbs), played CF in college, and apparently played it well, which means that when he moves, he might move to RF, not automatically to 1B. Milner is a great athlete with great size, but based on his offensive numbers, is far from a finished product. He did log 6 triples in 70 games, but only stole 4 bases in 7 attempts. I like the upside on Milner, but he was 22 and will be 23 in 2007, so he needs to have a big year at Lakewood, along the lines of Jeremy Slayden’s 2006, in order for him to improve his grade.

Ceiling: Who knows, at this point. With his frame and athletic ability, he could be a Vlad Guerrero type, or he could be a complete dud. Until he has at least one full season of pro ball, it’s impossible to know.

Floor: Like most toolsy guys, his floor is really low.

Conclusion: If you love tools, you probably think Milner has a good chance. If you like numbers, well, he was old for the league, but was still above average. If Milner remains in RF, the offensive requirements are a tick lower than at 1B. Again, he needs to have a big year at Lakewood because of his age.

Berry, Quintin, OF (age 22) Grade = C

All things considered, Berry is probably a better prospect than Milner, but because his performance was so much worse at Batavia, I gave him a half grade lower than Milner. Berry was taken by the Phillies in the 5th round of the 2006 draft, adding to the many OF the Phillies took in the first 15 rounds. Berry was a very well thought of talent entering his sophomore year at San Diego State before being forced to have labrum surgery, which greatly impacted his development. He has great physical tools, and studied under one of the greatest hitters in history, San Diego State coach Tony Gwynn, but he didn’t apply those tools, maybe because he still isn’t healthy. Berry’s speed is his single best asset at this point, as he stole 19 of 23 bases at Batavia. If he indeed 100% recovered now, he might surprise some non-believers at Lakewood in 2007. He’ll probably open in RF if D’Arby Myers makes the Lakewood squad.

Ceiling: A baseball player who can run, hit and catch. Specific, huh?

Floor: See Milner, Gus.

Conclusion: As with all toolsy outfielders, temper expectations. One half season doesn’t tell us much about a player, especially a season in which he was recovering from major surgery. Chances are, had he not hurt his shoulder, he’d have gone in the 2nd or 3rd round, so the Phillies may have gotten a steal here, if he does pan out.

As I finish up the prospects who spent time at Lakewood and move into short season prospects, I just want to remind everyone how difficult it is to figure out players who have only played for a half season, or at most, two seasons, against mostly high school competition. You can draw some conclusions based on the numbers, you can make some guesses, but for the most part, you’re in “wait and see” mode, which while true with all prospects, is even more relevant for guys playing in the lower levels.

Pfinsgraff, Ben, RHP (age 23) Grade = B+

Pfinsgraff, the Phillies 22nd round pick in 2006, isn’t a scouts dream, but he’s a guy I’m going to keep an eye on in 2007, because he could surprise some people. Drafted as a college senior out of Maryland, the expectations weren’t high, particularly because he was coming off a minor shoulder injury (inflammation) and because he is a smallish RHP (6’0, 180lbs) without dynamite stuff. He features average stuff across the board, but has good command, and is most widely praised because of his baseball aptitude and ability to prepare for a game. The Phillies started him at Batavia, where he dominated for 40 innings, posting a 1.12 ERA, allowing only 25 H and 10 walks to 44 strikeouts. He was quickly promoted to Lakewood, where he logged another 23.2 IP, posting a 2.28 ERA, allowing 17 H, 8 BB and striking out 25. The thing that jumps out at me are the strikeouts. In his junior and senior seasons, he averaged 8.51 and 6.75 K/9 at a big NCAA school, but he jumped that number up to 9.70/9 over two levels. His control was excellent (2.53 BB/9), he was pretty unhittable, holding opposing batters to an OPS of .491, and he didn’t allow a single HR in his 64 IP. The reason I can’t give him higher marks is his age, as he was 22 in 2006 and turned 23 in November. He’s likely to stay in Lakewood, which means he’ll be old for the league, unless he’s turned into a reliever, in which case he could move much quicker through the system. My B+ grade is optimistic, and I rate him much much higher than any other outlet, but I like intelligent pitchers who understand how to get guys out and don’t rely purely on being able to ramp it up to 97 and blow guys away. There’s something to be said for being smarter than the batter and using average stuff to get lots of swings and misses and induce poor contact. Could he fall on his face at High A or AA? Sure, and there’s a better chance he will than won’t, but based on what he’s done, I’m giving him a B+, all things considered, even though based on pure numbers, he’s probably deserving of an even higher grade.

Ceiling: #3 starter or 7th inning reliever….not bad for a 22nd round pick.

Floor: Out of baseball in 3 years. Ben talked about how he wasn’t sure if baseball was his career after struggling a bit his senior year, but he decided he wants to give it his all until he realizes there’s no career in it for him. That seems like a somewhat morbid attitude, but it also sounds like it’s out of the Chris Coste playbook, and he turned out ok….eventually.

Conclusion: I like Pfinsgraff, for many of the reasons I stated above. He has an 89-92 mph fastball, little room for projection, and average secondary pitches. If his location remains a plus, if he keeps the ball on the ground, and if he continues to work and prepare, he will be a big league pitcher. The role in which he plays won’t be clear for a while, as it was thought he’d be moved to relief even in 2006, but he remained a starter, and pitched very well at Lakewood, so they might not be as quick to turn him into a reliever. He should see High A by July, if all goes well, and we should know a lot more about his long term future at that point.

Donald, Jason, SS (age 22) Grade = C+

I wasn’t crazy about it when the Phillies took Donald in the third round of the 2006 draft, but I can see why they did. The Phillies have basically 1 legit prospect in the middle of the infield, and that’s Brad Harman, who had a nightmare 2006 season. Donald was a premier prospect a few years ago and turned down a 1 million dollar bonus from Anaheim as a 20th round flier pick to attend Arizona. His stock has dropped since then, but he hit enough and was solid enough defensively to go in the third round. The Phillies think he’ll have enough range to stay at SS, but his bat is the big question mark. His composite numbers at Batavia put him 19% or so above league average, but for a college player, this isn’t exactly lighting the world on fire. His one surprising area was that he managed to steal 12 bases in 13 tries, after never stealing more than 7 in a season at Arizona. Donald appears to have another skill, getting plunked by pitches. In his three seasons at Arizona, he was hit a grand total 39 times, and he managed get hit 5 times at Batavia. This helps to raise his otherwise modest OB%, as he doesn’t draw a ton of walks. He made 9 errors at SS, but as I mentioned before, it’s tough to really assess fielding stats, especially in the lower levels, where field conditions are, shall we say, less than ideal. Donald’s grade was lowered based on his poor walk rate and lack of power at Batavia, but he could very well bounce back once fresh at Lakewood, and if he can steal 15-18 bases in 2007, it will improve his stock a bit.

Ceiling: A major league shortstop, but to what degree is uncertain. If his fielding drops off a bit, he looks more like a backup, especially if his bat doesn’t improve at Lakewood.

Floor: A utility infielder that bounces around and never really makes a mark.

Conclusion: Donald seems to do a bunch of things in above average fashion, but doesn’t really do anything overly well. He has a good hitting record in college and was lauded for his defense, we’ll have to see if it translates to his pro career. He’ll be the everyday SS at Lakewood, partnered in the middle of the infield with Adrian Cardenas at 2B. It should be an interesting combination to watch.

Yarbrough, Charlie, 1B (age 22) Grade = C+

Yarbrough, the Phillies 7th round draft pick in 2006, really is an interesting guy. He has been overlooked since high school, attending smaller schools, despite his huge frame (6’6, 255 lbs) and his massive power potential. He played two seasons at Longwood University, a D-II program, and then transferred to Eastern Kentucky, another small school. In his junior year, he tossed up a .739 slugging %, including 18 HR in 55 G. Still, he went under the radar, mainly because of his lack of a position other than 1st, and his playing at a smaller school. The Phillies nabbed him, and I’m sure in the back of their mind, they were thinking “a righthanded Ryan Howard”, and it’s clear why, based on physical stature and college background. Yarbrough got his first taste of advanced competition by being sent to Batavia, and he struggled, putting up a .625 OPS in 204 AB. He struggled in every facet of the game, but again, you have to be somewhat lenient, based on his lack of top competition in college, going to a league where some guys are playing for the second time, and others are high profile college pitchers. His numbers against LHP and RHP were fairly similar, and he made 5 errors. I could probably give him a straight C, but his college performance was strong, from all accounts he has a tremendous work ethic, and he is entitled to a free pass for his 2006. He’ll probably be the full time 1B at Lakewood, and if he turns it on, we’ll see what he can do, and if he doesn’t, his grade will drop.

Ceiling: A major league 1B who hits the ball really hard

Floor: Organizational filler

Conclusion: The Ryan Howard paralells are there, both on and off the field, but Howard put up an .840 OPS at Batavia in his age 21 season, compared to the .625 from CY. In his first full season, Howard put up an .827 OPS at Lakewood, with 19 HR in 493 AB. If Yarbrough ends up in that area, then we’ll be talking. However, anything in the .780-.800 range would be acceptable, in his first pro season. With guys like this, the chances of them succeeding are smaller than most, mainly because they are position locked. The potential for a 40 HR hitting beast is there, but we’ll see what happens. If he can’t adjust to offspeed pitches, he might not even hit 4 HR. Like Pfinsgraff, my grade might be generous now, but I’m willing to risk it.

I’ll be grading Edgar soon, as I get to the short season and rookie leagues, but I wanted to do a proper writeup on him, because I feel he might be one of the most under the radar guys in our system, and there’s really no real reason for that. The Phillies signed Edgar Garcia as a 16 year old free agent out of the Dominican Republic in 2004, after following him for quite a while in his home country. At 6’2, 190 pounds, Garcia offers a bit of projection, on-top of an already lively arm. He was sitting in the high 80’s/low 90’s as a 16/17 year old, there’s plenty of reason to believe he might improve. He featured an above average changeup, considering his young age, and an erratic curveball that the Phillies thought would improve. After signing him for $500,000, they were eager to see what he could do.

Garcia made his Phillies debut in the GCL, at the tender age of 17 in 2005.  He pitched just 55.2 IP, putting up a 3.56 ERA, allowing 63 H, 13 BB and striking out 42. Those numbers might not jump out at you as outstanding, but for a 17 year old, in his first exposure to pro baseball, they were quite solid, especially his walk rate, which was well above average. Because he was considered quite raw, people tempered expectations heading into 2006, probably for good reason, but Garcia just kept getting better. He pitched all of 2006, his age 18 season, at Batavia, and pitched extremely well. He posted a 2.98 ERA in 66.1 IP, allowing 62 H, 10 BB and struck out 46. Those numbers look pretty damn solid for an 18 year old competing against a lot of refined college players. Again, though, the hype and praise for Garcia was somewhat absent from the discussion. With the drafting of Kyle Drabek, and the big time success of the Lakewood rotation, it was easy to miss Garcia’s fine season in 2006. The strikeout rate still isn’t where most people want it, but two things should be pointed out. First, his walk rate, which was already excellent in 2005 (2.10/9), got even better in 2006 (1.36/9), at a higher level. Control, for young pitchers, is the thing you often see come last. Carlos Carrasco put up a great 2006, I rave about him constantly, but Garcia has much better control, and is a year younger. Carrasco struck out more guys, but also walked more. You can’t put everything together at 17/18 years old unless you are an absolutely one of a kind talent. The second area where Garcia improved was his hit rate, going from 10.19/9 in 2005 to 8.41/9. This is significant, again, because he lowered his rate drastically against tougher competition.

I don’t want to pretend his K rate isn’t at least a reason to pause, because it is. However, at this point, it’s not something that should diminish his potential as much as it has. He generated 1.26 ground balls per fly ball in 2006, that’s a decent ratio, but it doesn’t seem to indicate he’s going to be pitching primarily to contact and not trying to strike guys out. He held both lefties and righties to under a .670 OPS, which speaks to him working more on his changeup and having a weapon to use against LH batters. It’s my opinion, based on nothing other than the logic in my head, that Garcia’s low K rate comes from him not wanting to walk batters. It’s simply an approach that he’s going to have to work on, and it might just be a matter of him not being afraid to miss off the plate. As he continues to move up the organizational ladder, it’s something he will learn from, and something he will be able to hopefully improve. If the high strikeout numbers don’t come, it doesn’t necessarily mean he can’t be a solid middle of the rotation starter, but he will need to improve his GB:FB ratio, and he will need to maintain his good command. However, he’s posted two strong seasons, at a very young age, so at this point, it almost feels like nitpicking. A 6.49 K/9 ratio, which is what his average over his first two seasons is, would be league average as a starter at the big league level, of course, that number isn’t big league adjusted, but I’m just throwing it out there. However, his walk rate, 1.70, would be in the top 4 or 5 of regular, 160 IP a year pitchers. I weigh strikeouts as much as the next person, but right now, I’m not terribly worried.

Garcia also benefits (I think) by having his pitch selection trimmed down to 3 pitches (that I know of), which means he’s confident in what he has, and isn’t tinkering with 5 or 6 different pitches. He features a fastball that sits in the low 90’s, can touch 94/95, and might improve a tick or two in the next two to three years. He also has an above average changeup, which could eventually rival Carrasco’s for best in the organization. He commands it well to all areas of the zone, and has good arm action, which adds to the decepcion of the pitch. His third pitch, both in counting and effectiveness, is a 12-6 curveball, which has been inconsistent at times, and may also be a factor in the low K rates. You can keep hitters off balance with a fastball and a changeup, but unless you have one of the best around (Cole Hamels, Pedro Martinez), it’s tough to be a strikeout artist without a reliable breaking ball. If he can tighten the pitch and gain confidence in it, at least making it average or a tick above average, it will improve his other two pitches, and if he can figure it out and turn it into a plus pitch, then he has all the makings of a solid, 200 inning, middle of the rotation starter.

2007 should be a fun year to watch Garcia, and we should be watching him at Lakewood, in what is shaping up to be a powerful rotation yet again. He’s only thrown 55 and 66 innings the last two seasons, but in his age 19 season, the Phillies might be ready to take the training wheels off. It wouldn’t surprise me to see them try to limit him to 120 innings or so, but that’s not the worst thing they could do. If he gains confidence in his curveball, he could be in for a dynamite third season, and at this time next year, will be generating a lot more buzz than he is now.

We’re gonna keep on keepin’ on here with the grades.

Blaine, Justin, LHP (age 22) Grade = C

If I were to tell you a guy was 35% below league average, would you guess he had an ERA under 4? Probably not, but that’s the case with our 6th round pick in 2005. Blaine, a 6’4 LHP, had pretty awful peripheral numbers across the board, 9.27 H/9 (-5%), 5.43 BB/9 (-20%), 5.91 K/9 (-16%), but the only bright spot is that he didn’t allow a single HR in 56.1 IP. Even with his terrible peripheral numbers, he posted an ERA of 3.82. So, we clearly need to look deeper at his performance and adjust his grade, as I find it hard to give him an F. Start with his age….he was 22 in 2006, at Low A. That’s the top end of the age spectrum, and he probably should have been at Clearwater, but because he was a 2005 draft pick, it’s not that unusual. He started 6 of the 18 games he appeared in, so his role isn’t crystal clear just yet. His OPS allowed by month improved after a bad May (.824) to .595 in June and .690 in July, that’s decent. He was equally good against LH and RH batters, .706 OPS against LH, .705 against RH. So really, what gives? Well, check out this statistic. He allowed 119 groundballs to 34 flyballs. That’s right, over 3.5 GB to FB….that’s pretty ridiculous. The trade off is, of course, that he can’t strike anyone out. I’m not sure where he’ll end up in 2007, but it will probably be in relief, probably at Clearwater. I don’t have the video handy, but his delivery reminds me a little of Huston Street, the A’s closer, but with a lot less velocity, and from the left side.

Ceiling: I think his ceiling is a #5 starter, probably similar to a guy like Carlos Silva.

Floor: Organizational filler.

Conclusion: The Phillies have two more years to figure out what to make of Blaine. As he moves up the organizational ladder, his control is going to have to greatly improve, or his ERA is going to skyrocket. Ground ball specialists can survive, but they can’t give out free passes at the alarming rate Blaine was issuing them in 2006. If he figures out how to throw stikes and maintains his strong GB tendencies, he could be a useful backend option or a swing man.

(NO PHOTO, SORRY RON)

Hill, Ronald, RHP (age 24) Grade = C-

Ronald Hill? Who? I’m sure that’s what most of you are saying. Hill was taken in the 17th round in 2005, and after a nice run at Batavia in 2005, he was sent to Lakewood in 2006. He impressed, putting up a 2.30 ERA in 54 innings from the bullpen, and was sent to Clearwater, where his results weren’t nearly as good, putting up a 7.88 ERA in 16 IP. His peripheral numbers at Lakewood were good, 8.56 H/9, 2.47 BB/9, 9.22 K/9, and 0.00 HR/9, but at Clearwater, not so good, with 14.63 H/9, 2.25 BB/9, 6.75 K/9, 1.69 HR/9. It’s important to realize the CLW sample is much smaller. It’s also important to realize his Lakewood numbers came at age 23, too old for the league. As a reliever only, his value is diminished further. However, I do like guys who show quality control, and he did so over the course of 2006. His K rate dropped at Clearwater, but was still 6.75/9, which considering an adjustment time is normally necessary, isn’t the end of the world. In his two other split areas, he got more than 2 ground balls to every fly ball, which is a positive, and he was tough on RH batters, holding them to a .629 OPS, while lefties knocked him around to the tune of a .931 OPS. Clearwater is his likely destination for 2007.

Ceiling: A ROOGY who gets lots of groundballs would be a nice role for Hill, who isn’t on anyone’s radar right now.

Floor: Out of baseball in 5 years.

Conclusion: Hill is a guy who most people have never heard of, which isn’t uncommon for late round draft picks. I can’t speak to his “stuff”, but he probably has a sinker or a big two seamer that moves, which is what generates all the ground balls. He has good control, he got a fair amount of swings and misses, so he does have some promise. His 2007 season represents his age 24 season, so he’s gotta move quickly if he’s to be considered a prospect at this time next year. If he pitches well at Clearwater, he should be moved to the Reading bullpen by June, and then we’ll have a better clue on what he can offer, if anything.

Savage, William, RHP (age 22) Grade = B

Savage, a 26th round pick in the 2006 draft, is already looking like a potential steal. Assigned to Batavia after the draft, he pitched 9 scoreless innings, allowing only 6 H, 1 BB and striking out 8. He was sent to Lakewood, and his numbers there solid, putting up a 3.45 ERA in 31.1 IP, with 31 H, 5 BB and 28 K. His peripherals as a pro so far are better than his college numbers, which has to be a bright note for the Phillies, even at this early stage. His composite puts him around 30% better than league average for his time in the SAL, which would earn him a B+, but I dropped him to a B because he’s strictly a reliever as a pro. He did start some in college, and was able to bounce back after pitching multiple innings in relief, so he could be looked at as a multi-inning reliever at the top level. His stuff appears to be largely average, but the word is that he has a deceptive delivery, which makes his stuff play up a notch. He could start back in Lakewood, but the Phillies may challenge him and skip him to Clearwater, as he was a 4 year senior and does have late game experience in college. As of now, there are no real flaws to criticize him on. 2007 will be his age 22 season, so he’s ok age-wise. I guess his hit rate could stand to drop a hit or so per 9, but he did have good success against RH batters, holding them to a .563 OPS, and he got more GB than FB, so he has those two things working for him.

Ceiling: A 7th/8th inning reliever. Probably lacks the stuff to close, but could be a useful medium leverage kind of reliever.

Floor: AAAA pitcher, swingman type role in the mold of Clay Condrey.

Conclusion: For a 26th round pick, Savage did well for himself by moving to Lakewood and pitching well. Because of his experience and versatility, he could move quickly through the system. Mediocre stuff normally requires excellent command, which he appears to have. The role he eventually plays with the big club, if he makes it that far, will be determined by his ability to put hitters away without a true out pitch. He’s definitely one to watch in 2007.

We’re deep into the Low A level, which leaves only short season and rookie ball, but we’re now entering into the area with the most promise, but also the least predictability. Keep that in mind going forward.

Carrasco, Carlos, RHP (age 19) Grade = A

Talk about raising your stock. In 2005, Carrasco struggled mightily at Lakewood and was sent back to Batavia, where he again struggled. The Phillies readily admit he wasn’t ready for full season ball at age 18, but he was sure ready at age 19. He posted a 2.26 ERA in 159.1 IP, allowing only 103 H and 65 BB while striking out 159 and allowing only 6 HR. His composite stats put him at around 44% above league average, good enough for a straight A in my system, but close to the A- range. What pushes him over the A- grade, though, was that he did all his work at age 19, and he won’t turn 20 until March. At 19, the most impressive thing about Carrasco is his feel for his changeup, which is often the missing piece, or the last piece to develop for young pitchers. With an advanced changeup at a young age, you’re one step ahead of the competition. Carrasco’s fastball is already in the 91-93 range, and because he has a projectable body (6’3, 175lbs), there’s reason to believe he may add 1 or 2 mph going forward. His curveball was inconsistent and is behind both his fastball and change, but scouts and experts tend to think it will improve the more he throws it, and this could have led to his 3.67 BB/9 in 2006, the only blemish on his record. He gets a lot of ground balls, he doesn’t give up many home runs, and he strikes guys out….all the qualities of pitcher who will likely succeed going forward.

Ceiling: I’m very bullish on Carrasco, so I’ll go ahead and say a #2 starter, maybe better. With Cole Hamels ahead of him, how could he be a #1? I joke, but really, the sky is the limit. His changeup is the best in the system and one of the best in the minors, it would appear. He throws it with great arm speed and gets superb late fade on the pitch, which will help him neutralize LH batters. The key, which will determine where he pitches in the rotation, is how well his curveball develops. If it becomes an above average pitch, he should/could be a top of the rotation starter. If it lags and is merely a show me pitch, he might be a middle of the rotation starter.

Floor: A back of the rotation starter. Really, his arm is too good for anything else.

Conclusion: His 2006 represents one of the best pitching seasons in the minors at any level. The Phillies tried to double jump him before, I doubt they do the same thing again. He’s going to start at Clearwater, and will probably stay there all season, unless he really does go crazy and dominate in his first few months. He’s probably 2 years away from the majors, at least, but that would make him 21/22 when he’s pushing for a job, and that’s just fine.

Mitchinson, Scott, RHP (age 22) Grade = B

Mitchinson, another Aussie product, took a step in the right direction in one sense this year, but also a step back. Mitchinson struggled on the field in 2005, both with performance and his health, and in 2006, he righted one area, the one the field performance, but struggled in the other area, as he threw only 61.1 innings at Lakewood. When he did pitch, he did a real nice job, allowing only 53 hits and 18 walks against 64 strikeouts in his age 21 season. Mitchinson’s 37% above league average composite would be good enough to put him in the B+/A- range, but he has to be dropped to a straight B based on his health issues. If he can remain healthy for an entire season, we’ll know more about what kind of value he has going forward. He’s shown an ability to get swings and misses at every stop thus far, and his hit rate in 2006 is probably more in line with what to expect going forward, as he didn’t have a fluky BABIP rate (.313) which could skew his H/9 way up or way down. His control seems to be pretty solid, but the one area of concern is his G:F rate, which is almost 1:1. Being a flyball pitcher isn’t a “bad” thing, as long as you can get guys to swing and miss at a high rate, which it appears he can. Because he will only be 22 at most likely at High A, he’s on track, age wise. Whether he remains a starter or not will ultimately impact his long term value.

Ceiling: I’m not really sure here. I guess a #3 starter or a late innings reliever. If he can’t stay healthy, he’s bullpen bound, but his stuff appears solid, all things considered.

Floor: Swing-man/long reliever seems plausible.

Conclusion: Injury seems to be his number 1 obstacle at this point. If he is healthy for the entire 2007 season, we should be able to better gauge his value in the long run. From what we’ve seen so far, he looks like yet another promising arm in the pitching pipeline.

Zagurski, Mike, LHP (age 24) Grade = B-

Zagurski is an interesting guy, a guy who I might not be as high on as some others that follow the Phillies minor league guys, but a guy who could be a decent role player down the road. A 12th round pick in 2005, he struggled at Batavia last year, probably due to a tired arm, but was pretty solid in 2006 at Lakewood. His composite numbers put him at 64% above league average, but obviously adjustments are needed. Numbers wise, he put up a 3.51 ERA in 56.1 IP, allowing 7.35 H/9, 3.51 BB/9, 0.00 HR/9 and 11.98 K/9, those are solid peripheral numbers in all cases except the walk rate. The first adjustment we need to make is for age. He was 23 in 2006, which is too old for Low A, so we move his grade from an A to a B+. The second adjustment comes from him being reliever exclusive, so we bump him from B+ to a B. The fact that he is left handed is a credit to him, but it’s offset by his splits. He actually put up better numbers against RH batters (.588 OPS allowed) compared to LH batters (.712 OPS allowed), so I’m not sure if it’s a fluke, or if it’s a developing pattern. Conversely, he is an extreme groundball pitcher, with an over 2:1 ratio, and he didn’t allow a HR in the 56 IP in 2006, and that definitely lends support to him being a good reliever going forward. Honestly, I was on the fence between a B and a B-, but I just worry about a guy who, at 23, walked 3.5 batters per 9 at Low A. He’s now 24, and it’s unclear whether he’ll go to Clearwater or Reading. If he goes to Clearwater, he’ll still be too old for his level, and if he’s 24 at Reading, he might still be at the top end of the prospect age group, so he’ll need to again dominate. I think if his control lags behind, he’s going to struggle at higher levels. In terms of what he throws, I really don’t know for sure. I’ve read before he throws a hard sinker (that’s evident by the GB:FB ratio), a curve, and a changeup. If someone can clarify that, I’d appreciate it.

Ceiling: A high leverage reliever, but probably short of closing material

Floor: AAAA pitcher who can pitch in most bullpen roles and bounces between AAA and the bigs

Conclusion: There’s a lot to like about Zagurski, starting with the high K rate/GB tendencies combo, but he was way too old for his level, so I want to see what he does against better hitters. I’m also slightly worried about the splits, but it could be a sample size thing. Every organization needs good, cheap bullpen options, especially lefties, so if he proves to just be a 6th/7th inning reliever, there’s nothing wrong with that, but it also limits his prospect value, which is ultimately why I decided to go with a B- instead of a B heading into 2007.

Back to the grades

Henry, CJ, SS (age 20) Grade = C-

CJ Henry, another cog in the Abreu trade, unfortunately comes with more hype than substance, but not enough performance to save him from this disappointing grade. Henry, a first round pick in 2005, was like the Yankees version of Greg Golson, so it was only natural that the Phillies asked for him in the Abreu deal. He was a basketball ace in high school and gave up a scholarship in favor of baseball. Always modest, he compares himself as a cross between Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez. Yeah, so he’s modest at least. Unfortunately, his composite put him at around 3% below league average in the SAL, his OB% just .001 under league average (.330) and his slugging % (.366) about 2.6% under league average. He’s the classic tools guy, good athlete, potential power, good speed, but he hasn’t shown it on the field yet, much like our own Greg Golson. He played SS, but many feel he’s going to have to move off the position and move to 3B, possibly the OF down the road. He was only 20 in 2006 playing in the SAL, and will be 21 at the end of May, so even if he repeats Lakewood, he won’t be too old for the league. Maybe moving off of shortstop will allow him to relax a bit and focus more on hitting. There is one silver lining to his 2006. He drew 32 walks in 77 games for New York before the deal, which helped compensate for his poor .240 BA. For Henry, it’s all upside, not much performance.

Ceiling: An everyday 3B. Seriously, he has the tools to be an impact player. It’s the translation of the tools that is the current issue. Which leads to…

Floor: A basketball player. Maybe Henry made the wrong choice to play baseball, maybe not. Unfortunately, with a player like him, the gap between what he can be is huge. If he learns how to refine his approach at the plate, if he better utilizes his speed, and if he can take to 3B, he could turn into a superstar in short order. If not, he’ll never make it past AAA.

Conclusion: Henry, like Golson, is one of the guys that drive you insane, because you see the potential, but you don’t see the results. 2007 should give us a good idea whether he’s moving closer to being a useful player, or if it’s time to give up completely.

Maloney, Matt, LHP (age 23) Grade = B

On paper, Maloney should be an A++. He put up a sparking 2.03 ERA in 168.2 IP in 2006, allowed only 120 hits and struck out 180 batters, en route to helping lead the Blueclaws to the SAL title. However, there are some problems, in my view. First, he was 22 the entire year, on the high end of the prospect spectrum. College pitchers should dominate at low A, and Maloney did. The second problem, which ties in with the third, is his walk rate. He walked 73 in the 168.2 IP, which is a lot of walks. This ties in with the third problem, his mediocre stuff. He has a deceptive delivery (but it looks max effort to me, which could be a problem), and he relies on his slow curveball to get outs. The problem is, at higher levels, batters are less likely to swing at breaking balls out of the zone. Most guys with fringe stuff are pinpoint control guys, like Kevin Slowey and Jeremy Sowers, and scouts even question their success at higher levels. For a guy with an 86-89 MPH fastball, even for a lefty, I think he’s going to need to really refine his control at the higher levels, or he’s going to hit a wall quickly. Because he clearly didn’t belong in the SAL, we’ll have to see how he does against better competition. I’m not writing him off, though my writeup seems harsh, but I want to see him dominate (or at least pitch well) at higher levels against more advanced hitters. If his control improves, so will his grade.

Ceiling: Because of the lack of a high quality fastball or above average stuff, his ceiling is probably as a 4th/5th starter.

Floor: Brian Mazone without the steroids?

Conclusion: Finesse pitchers are really tough to figure out and project. If his control improves, he’s got a much better shot to reach his ceiling. If it doesn’t improve, he looks more like a AAAA pitcher, or maybe a possible reliever down the road. His 2007 should land him in Reading, where he’ll be the proper age for his level, and will be facing much more advanced prospects. If he repeats his numbers from 2006, he’ll be a legit prospect, and the ceiling might even improve.

Outman, Josh, LHP (age 22) Grade = A-

When you consider their numbers, Maloney had the better 2006, but when you consider the stuff, Outman gets the nod, and it’s not really close. Outman was well above average in H/9, K/9 and HR/9, but like Maloney, struggled a bit with command, allowing 4.35 BB/9. However, he scrapped his slower slider/curve in favor of a hard biting slider, and that might be a possible reason for his lack of control. His fastball sits in the 92-94 range, which is outstanding for a LHP, and while his changeup is average, it could improve as he throws it more. His new-found hard slider was a true out pitch, evident in the 9.33 K/9. He didn’t turn 22 until September, so he basically pitched 2006 at age 21, which gives him another edge on Maloney. His composite numbers, about 31% above league average, probably should put him in the B+ range, but he gets the bump up for his strong performance as the season progressed, with his August (32 IP, 10 BB, 16 H, 35 K) showing that he’d truly taken things in the right direction. Because he possesses better stuff, he’s a better bet going forward. He’s also a personal favorite of mine, so that might skew my grade a bit, but lefties with his type of power don’t grow on trees. Chris Kline mentioned he might end up a reliever if he doesn’t harness his changeup, but I think he has plenty of time to work on it, and there’s no need to rush him. Power lefties are rare, and are much more valuable in the rotation. He’ll likely start at Clearwater and possibly move to Reading at mid-season.

Ceiling: #2 starter. I stated above that he’s a favorite, so maybe I’m being unrealistic, but really, if he lowers his walk rate while maintaining his strong K rate and hit rate, he’s got the makings of a front of the rotation starter. He keeps the ball on the ground and gets lots of swings and misses….really the perfect combination for a pitcher.

Floor: A reliever. If his changeup doesn’t become at least average, this is a possiblity.

Conclusion: The sky is the limit for Outman, a 10th round pick in 2005. If he harnesses his stuff, he’s a lock to stay in the rotation, and probably pitch in the top half of said rotation. If he pitches well in 2007, he should finish the season at Reading, which means he’ll be poised for MLB action sometime in 2008. There’s no need to rush him at this point, and focusing on his control within the strikezone and his command of his secondary pitches are the big areas to watch in 2007.

Rockin’ and rollin’ along. Busy day today, plus a long drive home because of the snow/rain/sleet, so this posting is a bit delayed.

Kennelly, Tim, C (age 20) Grade = C-

Another Aussie leads off our list today. Kennelly had a stellar 2005, posting an .835 OPS at the GCL level in his age 18 season. Everyone loves .800+ OPS catchers, especially organizations that lack true top notch catching prospects. Unfortunately, Kennelly went backwards in 2006, struggling to a brutal .577 OPS at Batavia in short season ball. Really nothing went right, as his .293 OB% was pretty lousy, but not quite as bad as his .284 slugging %. Was he playing with an injury? Was he just over-matched? In 2005, he drew 21 walks to only 16K, but he reversed the trend in 2006, walking just 11 times to 26 strikeouts. He had an impressive 11 doubles in 112 AB in 2005, only 6 in 134 AB in 2006. Needless to say, every step of his game went backwards, but he was still sent to Lakewood for the final 8 games of the season. It’s reasonable to assume he will be kept at Lakewood if Lou Marson, who was also bad in 2006, goes to Clearwater. Because 2006 was his age 19 season, we shouldn’t be totally down on him. He struggled defensively, committing 10 errors in 44 games at Batavia, but I don’t know how good his arm is, I don’t have his SB/CS ratio. If he does play full season ball at age 20 and can post a .725+ OPS, then there is definitely reason to hope. His composite numbers put him about 21% below league average, normally that would be grounds for a straight F, but he gets a boost because he is a C, and because he was only 19. I was between a D+/C- on him, but went with the C- based on his strong 2005. If he can rebound in 2007, he has the ability to improve significantly, grade-wise, by this time next year.

Ceiling: A major league catcher. Really, that’s all I can say based on the data we have. If he’s a butcher behind the plate and needs to be moved, his bat is going to have to carry him, but if his bat doesn’t rebound, he’s going to be a working civilian like you and me.

Floor: See above. His floor is organizational filler.

Conclusion: As we get lower and lower on the chain, it’s tougher to really know what we’re looking at. Kennelly is a guy I followed this year with great expectations after last season. Unfortunately, as many prospects do, he let me down a bit. He’s still real young and has plenty of room to grow. If he can replicate his offensive success and cut down on the errors, because he is a catcher, he’ll shoot up many prospect lists.

Marson, Lou, C (age 20): Grade = B-

I like Lou Marson. Lou is a pretty cool name. Lou Brock. Lou Gehrig. Lou Marson. Well, except those guys were Hall of Famers, and this Lou didn’t crack the .700 OPS mark this season at Low A. That said, he did play half the Low A season at age 19, not turning 20 until late June, and his .694 OPS, while somewhat stinky compared to the league, for a catcher, a young catcher, it’s not the end of the world. His OB% was about 3% above league average, his slugging % about 6% below league average, bringing his composite rating to about 3% below league average. Like his catching counterpart above, we have to make a few adjustments. First, the fact that he played a full season at 19/20 gets him a slight bump, and the fact that he’s a catcher gives him another slight bump. So, his C turns into a C+. Marson has moved one level at a time, going from the GCL (.722 OPS) in 2004 to Batavia (.720 OPS) in 2005 and then to Lakewood (.694 OPS) in 2006. The most promising thing about Marson offensively, to me, is the walks. He drew 49 walks in 104 G, which aided his OB%, as he hit just .243, but gained an extra 100 points on the strength of the walks and his 5 HBP. He also got to handle the strongest pitching staff in Low A, and you’d think some of their success would be a credit to his handling of the staff…..or maybe it was just luck, that part of the game is really hard to measure and draw conclusions from. Because of that, though, and because of his strong plate discipline, I bumped his grade to a B-. As I mentioned with Kennelly, the organization is really thin at C, especially with the questions now on Jaramillo’s defense, so I’m begging that one of these guys steps up this season. It’s reasonable to assume Marson will go to Clearwater, where he’ll be only 20/21 for the season, playing against guys 2-3 years older than him. If he holds his own again and can raise his OPS into the .760 range, he’ll be a legit top 15 prospect next year.

Ceiling: Marson is still 3-4 years away from Philly, but age is on his side, and so is his patient approach at the plate. If he continues to draw walks at the rate he did in 2006, he’ll be more than an all catch no hit catcher. It’s wish-casting to assume he’ll be anything more than a #7 hitting catcher, but if his game calling and defense are legit, there’s no reason to think he couldn’t turn into a major league catcher, probably a starter, at some point down the line.

Floor: Organizational filler/AAAA player. He can’t be worse than Sal Fasano, so you’d have to think a career backup, as long as he can remain behind the plate, is a reasonable future.

Conclusion: All things considered, Marson is a step or two ahead of Kennelly on the spectrum, but Kennelly is a bit more of an unknown still, while we’ve seen flashes of what Marson can do. If the plate discipline remains and the defensive aspect is there, he’s going to be fine. I don’t know if he’ll add any power, he had just 25 XBH in 2006, but he did have 5 triples, so he might be able to run a little bit. A very young Jason Kendall in the making? I could think of worse guys to hope he becomes. No use placing odds on guys this far away.

Harker, Brett, RHP (age 22) Grade = B

As I detailed here, I’m a Brett Harker fan. In his first full season, he held his own in the Lakewood pen, posting a 2.92 ERA in 64.2 IP. His important stats were all above average as he allowed 7.38 H.9 (+15%), 2.64 BB/9 (+30%), and 0.54 HR/9 (+15%) while striking out 7.65/9 (+1%) for a composite average of 62% above league average. Of course, we have to make some adjustments. As he is a reliever exclusively, he gets docked points from an A to an A-. He’s on the high end of the prospect age spectrum for Low A, but I wouldn’t have docked him just for that, however, he did post a 5.06 ERA in 2005 at Batavia, and when looking at the big picture, that along with him being 22 convinced me to drop him down a half grade. He then loses his final half grade based on his K rate. I hate to keep harping on it, but strikeout rate is a really important indicator, and to me, it’s the most important for a reliever, followed closely by BB/9. As you can see, he was above average in his hit rate and walk rate, but was merely league average in the swings and misses category. His fastball is fringy, but he does have a great curve/slider offspeed pitch. The question is, will it translate to higher levels? He’s likley headed to Clearwater, where he should get some save chances.

Ceiling: A major league setup man. He saved 17 games in 2006 and has college level experience in closing games, however, if he doesn’t add to his fastball (he probably won’t), he might not have enough to close games out in the majors unless he develops a plus changeup or a split of some sort. His offspeed pitch appears to be a plus offering, from the reports I’ve read, but he won’t be able to live off of it, especially at higher levels.

Floor: Worst case scenario, he’s a poor man’s Geoff Geary.

Conclusion: I like Harker, and I think he’ll be a useful piece in the ML bullpen in a few years, but the leverage of the situations he is handed could depend on his fastball and his control. He seems to have the mentality to pitch late in games, but that won’t be enough if the stuff doesn’t translate. We’ll see as he faces tougher competition in 2007 and beyond.

Before I continue on with the grades, a few people were wondering about my criteria on grades, so I figured I’d expand on what I wrote in my first piece. My original comments were:

I don’t want to get into explaining tons of formulas, but here are my basic evaluation methods. I’m going to base most of my grades on performance, relative to the league average, and then consider age and position. For example, when looking at a guy like Mike Costanzo, I’m going to look at his performance against those in the FSL, then consider a multiplier for his position, 3B, then consider his age in relation to his league. Defensive analysis is tough, even at the ML level, so I’m not going to alter my grade much in that area, but I will consider it and weigh it slightly. I’m not really going to use a player’s tools or what others think he could be, I’m simply going to grade based on what the player has done. I’m going to place a higher weight on 2006 performance, but also consider past performance and other aspects of the player’s body of work/makeup.

When evaluating all the players I’ve done so far, I’ve taken their 2006 numbers and weighed them against the league average for the league they’ve pitched in. I’ve then considered their position or role and taken that into account. I’m much more “demanding” of a corner OF or corner INF offensively, because they need to produce offensively on a higher level to project to any kind of future success at the major league level. I also have been considering possible off the field stuff, like in the case of Brad Harman, and I’ve also considered age for the level, as well as possible things like makeup concerns. I try to limit adjustments to the grade to one position. For example, I’ll figure out the player’s performance, relative to his league, then adjust for age and position/role, and then I’ll take that grade and either leave it alone, bump it up a half grade or drop it a half grade, so either from a B to a B-/B+ or just leave it a B. As for figuring out what is what, basically, this my “scale”: a C prospect is basically a minor league average player, not the average prospect, just the average for the league. So, if the league average for A+ is a .255/.327/.376 line (which it is, for the FSL), then I take a player’s numbers in those areas and weigh them, except I don’t use batting average, instead just using on base %. Then I consider age and position/role and adjust if necessary. Then, I take that grade and adjust. You have to consider, an average minor leaguer, for his level, probably doesn’t deserve a high prospect status, because you’d assume that a player who can’t at least put up above average numbers against minor leaguers won’t be able to put up numbers against major leaguers. So, for an example, let’s use Greg Golson, since his grade raised a lot of comments.

At Lakewood, he was 22% below average in OB% and 11% below average in slugging, for a 33% below league average total. At Clearwater, he was 1% below average in OB% and 25% above average in slugging, for a 24% above average total. When you look at his total performance, he was about 10% below average as a whole based purely on performance. 10% below the minor league average, which considers mercenaries as well as prospects, rates him a D+/C- on the scale. His high A numbers should get a bit more weight because he was only 20 at that level, but then you have to consider he’s a corner OF, and the offensive demands are going to be higher for him than for, say, a shortstop, and when you put the numbers in that lens, they aren’t quite as impressive. If the slugging % he put up at Clearwater is for real, then his prospect outlook is a bit better, but if not, then he deserves the D+ number. I probably discounted his speed to an extent, so then again, maybe he’s a C-, based purely on his numbers. But when you factor in the makeup questions and the poor OB% number, at both levels, I think a D+ is certainly warranted, by the way I’ve been rating players.

For comparison’s sake, here’s another player I’ve already graded and why I gave him that grade specifically. I gave Joe Bisenius a B+ a few days ago, and here’s why. At high A, Bisenius was basically 35% above average in terms of H/9, K/9, BB/9, and HR/9 combined, and at AA, he was an eye popping 86% above league average in those categories. If you average them together, that’s an average of 60% above league average across both levels. A prospect that is 60% better than his league is normally a straight A prospect, but with Bisenius, adjustments were necessary. First, he pitched 60 innings at high A as opposed to only 23 innings at AA, so you have to adjust his grades. In his case, to weigh his average performance, I took the 35% and multiplied it by 3, then took his 86% and added it to that number, then divided it by 4. The result was 48%, which seems a little more in line, but would still be right around a straight A grade. Then, I considered his age. He was only 23, but that’s still on the top end of the average prospect age at high A, so I bumped him down another half grade to an A-. I then considered that he is an exclusive reliever, which limits some of his long term value, but the thing that truly made him a B+ (and almost a B, really) is his walk rate. This, along with K rate, are the two biggest things I consider when trying to predict which pitchers will succeed going forward. At both A+ and AA, Bisenius was right at the league average for all pitchers, and to me, that is slightly worrisome. His hit rate and K rate were outstanding at both levels, but he does need to work on his command and control. So, considering that, I bumped his grade down to a B+. I could have bumped it down to a B, all of that considered, but his K rate was strong enough, coupled with his ability to keep the ball in the park, so I left him at a B+.

I hope those explanations help to clear up some questions. Also, remember, this is just one man’s opinion here, I’m more than aware that others are going to disagree with me on certain guys and agree with me on certain guys. When writing these up, sometimes I’m honestly in between a grade, and if someone makes a convincing case, I’ll update the grade. With Golson, I clearly was harsh with the original F, and deep down, I knew he deserved a D+ or maybe a C- even, but I needed someone to snap me out of it, and thankfully some of you did. With that said, here is another batch of grades. But before we get these out, I forgot to do the ceiling, floor and conclusion for the last two batches of guys, so I’m going to go back and update those later, be sure and check back in on those. Because of those necessary updates, only 3 grades today.

Slayden, Jeremy, OF (age 24) Grade = B-

I guess it makes sense that I grade Slayden now after just explaining my theory on adjusting grades. Slayden raked in a big way at Lakewood in 2006, to the tune of an .891 OPS, and his ob% and slugging % put him a combined 50% above the league average for the SAL. That should mean a higher grade, right? Well, if you follow the minors closely, you know the downsides to Slayden without me having to mention them. He turned 24 in July, so he was clearly way too old for the SAL, and he has major defensive question marks, with a poor arm that will probably limit him to LF or possibly 1B down the road. He also lacks any real speed, stealing only 5 bases. Now, the positives. He can hit the cover off the ball; 44 doubles and 10 home runs is a solid contribution, even if he was 2-3 years too old for the league. If he repeats that feat at Reading in 2007, then he’ll be a solid B prospect, maybe even more. The question is, where does he play? Unless the Phillies move to the AL sometime soon, or the DH is adopted in the NL (*vomit*), Slayden is going to have to play the field, or he won’t be an everyday player. Can his defense improve to the level of him being an adequate corner outfielder? I’m not sure. If it does, his grade will improve as long as he continues to rake. On strictly numbers, he’d be an A- prospect, but when you factor the age and the defense, he has to be a B-. 2007 could change my mind, we’ll see.

Ceiling: It’s tough to guage what type of major league contributor he’ll be. If he crushes the ball at Reading, his age won’t be such a big issue, but we need to see what he can do defensively. If he’s passable in LF, his ceiling could be a .800-.870 OPS LF at the big league level. That’s certainly nothing to sneeze at. He could be looking at something like a .280/.370/.500 line as his high point, and that would be outstanding.

Floor: Unfortunately, this is just as tough to predict. If he can’t play defense, he’s destined to be a DH, and that will come in another organization. It looks like he’ll hit though, that shouldn’t be a worry.

Conclusion: Slayden is one of those guys who may surprise a lot of people, or he may just turn into a 24th man type guy, capable of DH’ing or playing an emergency LF or 1B. The best case, if he’s to remain in the Phillies org, is that he becomes a passable LF and can step into a 4th OF/backup 1B role sometime in 2008 or 2009, when he’ll be entering his age 26/27 season. I really don’t know how to place odds, because he’s only played one full season. I like him though, so I’ll put the odds of him reaching his ceiling at 50%, with the odds of him hitting his floor being 75%. He seems like a guy that’s going to always hit, but if he can’t play the field, he’s going to end up being traded as part of a bigger deal to an American League team.

Baez, Welinson, 3B (age 22) Grade = D+

I wonder if I’ll get similar feedback on Baez like I did on Golson….I’ll guess no, but we’ll see. Baez, as many know, was touted by the organization for his feel for the game and raw tools, but so far, the tools haven’t translated to on the field performance. He spent all of 2003 and 2004 at the GCL and struggled, then he impressed in 2005 in his third shot, posting a .933 OPS, and followed it with a .932 OPS at Batavia to end the year. He honestly looked like a breakout candidate for 2006….but all he broke was my heart, just a tiny bit. He posted an abysmal .673 OPS in the SAL as a 22 year old, and his prospect status again takes a big hit. His .305 OB% was about 7% below average, his .368 slugging % about 2% below average. Add that up, and you’ve got a guy about 10% below league average, at the top of his age group for said league, and playing a position where offense is a premium….oh, and he 33 errors in 122 games. Ouch. Honestly, I didn’t know what to do with his grade. He struggled two years in a row at the GCL level, he made a ton of errors, and he was 5 for 10 in SB. Where are the positives? His 34 doubles are nice, but his 158 strikeouts in 427 AB’s nearly make me sick, considering he had a whopping 6 HR. Could he be a C- guy? Maybe, but going on what I posted above, no, considering he is 22. It was his first season of pro ball, does that make him a C-? Eh, I don’t know. I don’t think he has much of a future, at least with this organization. The past regime spent the money to sign him, they took the time to develop him, but will Gillick be that patient? His 40 man decision will come at the end of 2007.

Ceiling: Another guy with the ceiling of Abe Nunez. Really, the outlook isn’t good. Honestly, his ceiling at this point is a utility infielder.

Floor: His floor is out of baseball in 3 years. That looks like a more realistic destination

Conclusion: When you sign free agents from Latin American countries, you never know if you’re getting the next Felix Hernandez or a guy who will flame out in 3 years. It’s nice the Phillies took the chance on Baez, but so far, it doesn’t look good. I give him a 35% chance of reaching his ceiling, and a really really good chance of him hitting his floor and washing out of baseball. 2007 is a huge year for him, and should tell us whether or not he’ll be sticking around or not in 2008.

Hernandez, Fidel, SS (age 20) Grade = D+

We have a Fabio Castro and a Fidel Hernandez, that’s funny, huh? Fabio has shown much more ability than Fidel has, though Fidel is still young. Hernandez put up an eye popping .561 OPS at Lakewood, good for a 41% below average composite. That’s…..well, that’s awful. But, he was only 20 and playing full season ball. And, he’s a shortstop, so the offensive expectations are lower than for a guy like Baez. But, he made 25 errors in 99 games. Damn, he deserves an F, doesn’t he? No, I’m sticking with a D+. He had the rep of being a solid defensive SS, he might just need time to adjust. His offensive numbers were clearly vomit inducing, and he didn’t use his speed, with only 9 SB in 14 attempts, but I’m willing to see how he responds with his second full season before completely killing him as a prospect. At this time next year, there’s a really really good chance he gets an F, but we’ll see.

Ceiling: It’s hard to say right now. Could he become a slick fielding, no hit SS in the mold of Adam Everett? That’s probably being extremely optimistic, but really, that’s what we have to be in the case of young guys who can’t hit, but are supposedly good fielders.

Floor: See Baez, Welinson.

Conclusion: Really, I feel like I’m repeating myself here. Baez has a much longer track record, so he’s at a much more critical stage. Hernandez has time yet, and in his second season of pro ball, we should have a better idea of what he’s going to do. No doubt he was over-matched in 2006, but if he makes adjustments, he could put up a decent season in the .720-.750 range. That’s probably being really optimistic, but yeah well. I won’t even lay odds on him, not enough info.

Rolling along, all feedback welcomed and encouraged.

Cline, Zac, LHP (age 23) Grade = C+

If you look at Cline’s 2006 numbers, he doesn’t deserve this grade, however, if you realize he missed all of 2005 with Tommy John surgery, it makes more sense. The Phillies took Cline in the 15th round of the 2004 draft, and the pick was looking like a steal after his initial performance, 63.2 IP, 2.85 ERA, 59 H, 12 BB, 55 K. However, he had to miss all of 2005 with Tommy John surgery, and 2006 was expected to be a tough year for him trying to regain his command, which was excellent before the surgery. He spent time at both Lakewood and Clearwater, and while his 5.23 ERA looks ugly, he seemed to regain some of his stuff, striking out 15 in 13.2 IP at Clearwater. The second year back is normally where things seem to click, so for Cline, 2007 is important. He’s still 23 and doesn’t turn 24 till July, so he’s got some time, and the promise he showed before the injury means he still has a chance to be a legit prospect, whether it be as a back of the rotation starter or a reliever.

Ceiling: Right now, his ceiling is #4/5 starter, or middle reliever. It’s tough to know how he will bounce back from TJ surgery in his second full season. If he has a full recovery and regains his command, he’s got a legit shot to be considered a quality prospect at this time next year. If he doesn’t regain velocity, he may struggle to ever be more than a AAAA pitcher.

Floor: His floor is a AAA pitcher who maybe gets a shot sometime down the road. Think Brian Mazone, without the steroids.

Conclusion: It’s tough to predict and project post Tommy John results, because it seems different pitchers react differently to the surgery. If he comes all the way back and can replicate his 2004 success at higher levels, I think he has a good chance, maybe a 60% chance, to reach his ceiling. If he falls short, his ceiling becomes a middle reliever, but if he can’t regain control of his stuff, he probably won’t make a major league bullpen. As with all injury cases, there is the chance he just washes out of baseball and can’t make it back.

Golson, Greg, OF (age 21) Grade = D+ (edited from an F to a D+)

I’m sorry, Greg, but you deserve the first F of these rankings. If Golson were a late round flier pick, I’d consider giving him a D. But, with Phillip Hughes being placed in the Top 10 of most every prospect list, it’s hard for me to not be incredibly bitter or angry with this pick. Golson, though he was only 20 in 2006, has been a massive disappointment at every level, even with his glimmer of hope after being promoted to Clearwater. Why is that a disappointment? Because the reports were that he sulked when he was sent back to Lakewood to start the year. I guess he felt that his stellar .711 OPS in 375 AB’s at Lakewood in 2005 warranted him being sent to Clearwater. Maybe it was the 106 strikeouts to go with his 26 walks and 4 home runs? Whatever the reason, you don’t get points in my book for sulking. He isn’t a star, he doesn’t deserve star treatment. Since being drafted in 2004, he’s pretty much done nothing to show he was a first round pick, and honestly, hasn’t shown anything to suggest he’d even be a 25th round pick. Almost no plate discipline, which was still evident in his .325 OB% at Clearwater, and only flashes of both power and speed, the two attributes we were told would be his best when he was drafted. On paper, he get’s an F. On his attitude, he probably deserves an F. On tools? Well, if you listen to many, he get’s an A+++. Unfortunately, you don’t get free walks and home runs based on tools. Until he proves he can be consistent for an entire season, he gets an F. If he starts back at Clearwater, which he should, will he pout again? If he does, look for a .650 OPS and then a promotion out of nowhere to Reading, where he might play decently for 6 weeks.

Ceiling: With guys like Golson, they always say the sky is the limit. If he ever learns to draw a walk, and he maintains his power, he could be the next Andre Dawson. If he doesn’t, he’ll likely become the next Reggie Taylor. He has the tools, no one is denying that, but at some point, you have to start being a good baseball player, not just a good athlete. A good comp might be Milton Bradley with more speed. Bradley is a good all around hitter, can hit for some power, can run a little, and is generally considered a solid defensive RF. Golson has a similar toolset, with more speed.

Floor: Unfortunately, as lofty as the ceiling is, the floor is just as far down. If his plate discipline doesn’t improve and the makeup issues follow him up the ladder, he’s likely to teeter in the minors for the rest of his career, or until he decides he wants to try something else instead of baseball.

Conclusion: Despite my apparent dislike for him, I’m pulling for him harder than almost anyone. Being a first round pick puts a lot of pressure on a player, and it’s not like it’s his fault the Phillies took him over Hughes. If he can maintain the power he showed at Clearwater, he can shelve the pouting and sulking, and he can learn to take a walk, he could become a special prospect. If he doesn’t, well, he’s never going to amount to a hill of beans. I’ll put the chances of him becoming Milton Bradley with more speed at 25%, the chances of him landing somewhere in between at 50%. “In between” might be a 5th OF or a four A player.

Costanzo, Mike, 3B (age 23) Grade = B-

Costanzo, like Kendrick, is a guy I seem to change my mind on every day. Some days, I’m really down on him for a variety of reasons ranging from his real power to his mental makeup, other days I’m up on his chances, based on his age and his ability to turn it on as the season progresses. Where does that leave me for a grade? Good question. I was thinking about a straight B, but his defense at 3B has been questioned, and if he has to move to the OF, that reduces his long term value. I thought about a C+, but he was only 22 in 2006 and was above average at high A. So, I settled on a B-. First, the positives. Costanzo was a 2 way player at Coastal Carolina, so he’s had to make the transition to being a full time position player. His arm strength is a plus, but his fielding is not. Second, he has shown good isolated power despite being double jumped in 2006 over Lakewood. His .411 slugging % doesn’t look great, but it was still 10% better than the league average in the FSL, and in July and August, he slugged .421 and .525 in 107 and 101 AB’s respectively, which is quite solid. The negatives….well, his fielding wasn’t good, as he committed 25 errors in 135 games. However, you have to qualify that and remember that minor league fields are normally not up to par with the level of fields he’ll be playing on regularly at the big league level. Clearwater has one of the nicest stadiums in the minors, but he still had to play a lot of games in sub standard fielding conditions, and that really applies to most infielders throughout the minors. His OB% and his consistency are the two biggest things going forward. There have been mentions that he takes AB’s off or only gets up for the big game/spotlight moment, and that simply isn’t going to help him going forward. For him to climb the rankings lists, he’ll need something in the neighborhood of .285/.370/.480 next year at Reading. That’s not unheard of or out of his reach. At this point, he looks more like a utility guy than a starting 3B, but of course, that can all change in one season.

Ceiling: An every day 3B who doesn’t hit for a big average, but draws walks and shows good power. Like Golson, but to a lesser degree, makeup issues are starting to creep up, and word of him coasting at times is troubling. He’ll be 23 for his 2007 season at Reading, and it will be a big chance for him to evelate his status, or at the same time, greatly diminish his status.

Floor: Guys like Costanzo normally will always make it to the big leagues, but whether or not they ever stick, or become useful players is another matter. His floor is a four A corner INF/OF guy who plays occasionally at the big league level, but spends most of the season at AAA waiting for an injury. Disappointments like Sean Burroughs keep getting chances, and so too will Costanzo. The key will be consistency, and if he can maintain a consistent level of performance for an entire year, he’s got a fairly good chance of reaching his ceiling, we’ll say 65%. However, I think he has an even greater chance of falling down a bit closer to his floor.

Conclusion: 2007 is a big year for Mike. If he can sustain a solid campaign for the entire year, against tougher AA competition, then we might have a legit 3B prospect on our hands. If not, maybe it’s time he heads back to the mound and works on his curveball again. That’s being harsh, but he needs to have a 2007 to remember, or we probably won’t be remembering him down the road, at least for his on the field contributions. We’ll always remember him as being the guy we drafted who bragged about going home from the hospital in a mini Phillies jacket.

Harman, Bradley, SS/2B (age 21) Grade = B

Looking at just numbers, like we talked about with Cline, this grade seems out of place. However, Brad gets a pass from me for 2006, for a number of reasons, but most importantly, for off the field issues. His mom passed away back in Australia, and as someone who lost his mom at a young age this year, I completely understand what he went through. I find it mind-boggling that he was even able to play 119 games this season, but clearly looking at his numbers, his mind was elsewhere. When dealing with any kind of tragedy like this, it’s impossible to focus on your job, whether it’s playing baseball, working in an office, or digging ditches, and when you can’t focus, you are obviously going to have a very tough time succeeding, especially at a young age. Harman played all of 2006 at age 20, and while his 2006 was awful both on and off the field, his 2005, where he put up an .822 OPS at Lakewood at age 19, gives us reason to believe he’s going to be ok after an expected slip-up in 2006. He showed good plate discipline in both 2005 and 2006, but just didn’t hit for average at all this year, and his power drastically dropped. The Phillies have little depth at 2B/SS, with only 2006 draft picks Jason Donald and Adrian Cardenas representing legit prospects in those positions. Donald and Cardenas are probably going to open up at SS/2B in Lakewood, which means Harman could either repeat Clearwater or head to Reading to start 2007. They may have him start in Clearwater, and if he’s focused and ready to go, he could be promoted after a month or two. He still remains a really bright prospect, which is why I’m inclined to give him a B, even though his 2006 would say he doesn’t deserve it.

Ceiling: An above average offensive middle infielder. Harman is still quite young, and appears to have solid makeup. The Phillies dipped heavily into Australia, and Harman may end up being the best of the bunch. He has the ability to be a .280/.360/.480 type player, and at SS or 2B, that’s a big asset. Of course, if he has to move to an OF position, it will diminish his value, as he’ll need his bat to carry him. Buildwise, he reminds me of Michael Young, and if he turns into 75% of the player Young is, he’ll be a huge find for the Phillies. Young, in his first season in the SAL (age 21), had a line of .282/.354/.456, while Harman’s line in the SAL, at age 19, was .303/.380/.442.

Floor: It’s unclear how his 2006 will affect him going forward, but if he comes back with a clear head, he should be fine. He’s still 3 years away, but at worst, I think he turns into a utility infielder.

Conclusion: The odds of anyone “becoming Michael Young” aren’t very good, but Harman’s 2005 was outstanding, all things considered, and his 2006 was a disaster, numbers wise, but again, has to be taken into proper context. He could repeat Clearwater, and because he’ll only be 21, he won’t fall behind at all, in fact, he’ll still really be a year young for the level. If they give him the boost to Reading, where are there really aren’t many people blocking him at either SS or 2B, he could really elevate his prospect status.

Round 4 begins now.

Griffith, Derek, LHP (age 24) Grade = D+

Griffith had a decent 2005, allowing less than a hit per inning, striking out over 7 per nine innings, and keeping the ball in the park. In 2006, with a promotion to Clearwater, he took a step back. The former 17th round pick posted a 4.52 ERA in 151.2 IP, allowing 162 H, 57 walks, and struck out only 95 batters. His home run rate remained similar (up a tick), and he didn’t walk too many more per 9, but because he was 23, he needed a better season. When you’re taking guys in the 17th round, you are clearly tempering expectations, but after his 2005, there was reason to be somewhat optimistic. Because he is left handed, his shelf life is probably longer than that of a comparable pitcher who happens to be right handed. He experienced slightly better success vs LHB, holding them to a .641 OPS against his .777 OPS allowed to RH batters, which may suggest a possible move to the bullpen. He also induced 254 groundballs, to only 156 flyballs, which is nice, but he still pitches to contact too much for my liking, and that tends to catch up at higher levels. Griffith may repeat Clearwater, but along with Lakewood, those two teams will have a ton of candidates for the rotation, so he may be sent to Reading to start, or he may be converted to relief. If he can hone his stuff and ramp it up for one inning, he might be a good bullpen candidate in 2 years, but he has a ways to go yet. He’d receive a straight D if he weren’t lefthanded and didn’t have strong groundball tendencies.

Ceiling: I’m not sure, a swingman or 6th inning guy? He doesn’t have dominant splits, but is a bit better against LH batters than RH batters, so he might be a viable bullpen option.

Floor: Out of baseball in 3 years. He’s still got the tall frame that scouts like, especially for a LHP, but at some point, he needs to show it on the field. 2007 will kind of determine his future in baseball, or at least give us a much better idea.

Conclusion: As you can tell by the grade, I’m not very high on Griffith at this point. I guess if he lights up the world in 2007, the Phillies will take a chance on him and add him to the 40 man. If not, he’s Rule 5 bound, and could be out of the organization. He needs a big time season in 2007, because he’s 24 and has yet to reach AA.

Kendrick, Kyle, RHP (age 22) Grade: B

My thinking on Kendrick seems to differ day to day. I wrote a piece a little while back that 2007 was a big year for him, and if he were going to become a big league contributor, he’d have to take a big step forward, but the more I think about it, the more comfortable I am with him as a prospect. Because of his age, he pitched almost all of 2006 at age 21, he is still fine in terms of where he should be, but he’s been in pro ball for four seasons now, and after 2007, will have to be placed on the 40 man roster. Prior to 2006, he hadn’t done much to warrant that spot, but his 2006 was a definite step in the right direction. He posted dominant numbers at Lakewood, with a 2.15 ERA in 46 IP, allowing only 34 H and 15 BB against 54 K. After being promoted to Clearwater, the strikeout numbers dropped substantially (79 in 130 IP), but his walk rate actually improved (2.93 to 2.56) and he saw a moderate rise in his hit rate. As he’s climbed the ladder, it seems he struggles initially, but once he repeats the level, he gets more comfortable and regains his stuff. As 2007 will only be his age 22 season, he’s still prime prospect age. He could start back at Clearwater, but the Phillies might go ahead and send him to Reading, as he did log 130 innings at Clearwater. He’ll experience his toughest test to date in the Eastern League, and it will be interesting to see which Kendrick we get. His grade has room to move in either direction. A strong season at AA and I’d have no problems rating him a B+, but if he falters and his K rate remains in the 5-6 range, he could easily become a C+ prospect.

Ceiling: A #2/#3 starter, depending on his K rate. Right now, that is the area that remains the biggest question mark. Many had pegged Kendrick as a breakout candidate for 2006, and they were right, but now the test will be what he does going forward.

Floor: Let’s say his floor is a four A SP who bounces between AAA and the Majors. He doesn’t seem like a bullpen guy, at least now, and people will always dream on his loose arm and quality stuff, but if he can’t get guys out, and can’t generate swings and misses, he might not have a long term future in the pen either.

Conclusion: I had my doubts about Kendrick prior to 2006, and while I still have doubts, they’ve grown less convincing. I still think 2007 is a make or break year for him, not so much in being placed on the 40 man (he probably will be, regardless), but in him actually becoming a quality big league pitcher.

Johnson, Nate, RHP (age 24) Grade = C (Updated from a C+ to a C)

Johnson is a guy who never gets mentioned, even when discussing the fringe prospects, but I think he might deserve a look. I give him a C+, but I will state right off the top that he was too old for High A Clearwater. Johnson was taken in the 20th round of the 2004 draft, and 2006 represented his age 24 season, so it’s time for him to start moving a bit more rapidly. However, since he is exclusively a reliever, that shouldn’t be that much of an issue. Johnson struggled at Batavia in 2004, he struggled at Lakewood in 2005, but he really came into his own in 2006, posting a 2.56 ERA in 66 IP, allowing only 59 hits and 10 walks to 55 strikeouts. While the K rate (7.42/9) isn’t overly impressive, his control is, and 1.35 BB/9 is good regardless of the level you’re at. He induced more groundballs than fly balls (91 to 65) and allowed only 3 HR in the 66 innings. He was tough against LH batters, holding them to a .573 OPS, but he also shut down righties to the tune of a .609 OPS. He should be sent to Reading in 2007, where he’ll pitch for most of the year, in all likelihood. With another solid year, he could present himself as a bullpen option sometime in 2008. He isn’t flashy, he doesn’t have world-beater stuff, but he’s just the type of prospect all successful organizations need to have an abundance of.

Ceiling: A 7th inning reliever, really nothing more, and maybe a long man as “less” if you want to go that route.

Floor: Organizational filler.

Conclusion: I’m probably the only one talking about Johnson, and I may look silly in this space at this time next year, but I think he’s got a decent chance to become the 2008 version of Geoff Geary. Not spectacular, doesn’t have mind blowing stuff, but gets guys out, and does so cheaply. His ability to keep the ball in the park, and his impeccable control are big pluses for me, but we’ll see how it translates at AAA and eventually the bigs. I think he’s got a 50/50 shot of becoming the next Geary.

EDIT: oldgrandad snapped me out of my Nate Johnson appreciation fest and made me realize he does, in fact, warrant only a C.

Overholt, Patrick, RHP (age 22) Grade = B-

Overholt was a guy that I highlighted in my Arms to Watch piece, and I’m a big fan of his going forward. A college closer, he has the mentality to pitch in the late innings, and maybe most importantly, to me anyway, is his dominant strikeout rate. He K’ed 52 in 45 innings at Lakewood, and then 41 in 26 innings at Clearwater. His peripheral numbers were actually better at Clearwater than Lakewood (except HR rate), but his ERA was worse, 4.15 at Clearwater to only 3.15 at Lakewood. His final numbers were solid, 73 IP, 57 H allowed, 36 BB, 93 K. I’d have given him a straight B if it weren’t for his control issues at Lakewood. He cut down his walks by almost 2 per 9 innings at Clearwater, but they are still a concern. He will be 23 for his entire 2007 campaign, and personally, I think he should start off at Reading, but the Phillies might play it safe and start him as the closer in Clearwater with a mid-season promotion. If he can work on his control a bit and get his walk rate down in the 2.75-2.90/9 range and keep his K total where it is, he’s going to be a big league reliever, and possibly even a high leverage type of guy. Definitely an interesting arm, one of many in our pitching heavy system.

Ceiling: A big league closer. Simply put, he’s got quality stuff and gets a lot of swings and misses, plus he has the closing background and seems to have the mindset to pitch in high leverage situations.

Floor: A middle reliever, pitching anywhere from the 6th-8th inning, depending on need.

Conclusion: With Overholt, it’s simply going to come down to his command/control. If he can harness his stuff and avoid giving out free passes, he’s got the ingredients to become a big time reliever, and possibly a closer. While you rarely see a young pitcher come in and just start closing games at the big league level, ala Huston Street, Overholt might start as a 6th/7th inning guy, maybe even as soon as September 2007, but could eventually work his way into the back end of the pen. Tom Gordon isn’t young, and his contract is basically done after 2008, so if Overholt continues to impress, he may get a shot late in 2008 to close out some games, and it could be his role on this team, or on some other team, a few years down the road. Outside of Bisenius, he’s probably our best relief prospect, and being a year younger with closing experience, probably has a leg up on Joe for that spot, if we have an in house guy who can take it.