The Top 50 Countdown: 40-31

[Chisoxfn]

The Top 50 Countdown: 40-31

By Mike Doyle, Jason Gage, and Mark J. Jacobsen

June 2, 2003

SoxNet.net

 

From 50 all the way down to 1, we will start off our countdown of the top 50 prospects in the White Sox organization, starting with 31 through 40. Coming Soon: 21 through 30.

 

 

40. Clay Eason, 27 - RHP, RP – Charlotte Knights (AAA)

2003 (Charlotte-AAA): 0-0, 72.00 ERA, 1 INN, 1 K, 2 BB

2003 (Barons-AA): 1-3, 3.72 ERA, 36.1 INN, 38 K, 13 BB

2002 (Charlotte-AAA): 0-0, 4.43 ERA, 20.1 INN, 14 K, 9 BB

2002 (Barons-AA): 5-2, 2.00 ERA, 67.2 INN, 60 K, 26 BB

 

Clay Eason was originally a 38th round pick in the 1997 by the Philadelphia Phillies. He spent most of last season in Birmingham and, at 27, there isn’t much shot of him appearing in the majors anytime soon. Eason doesn’t have great stuff, but he has good control. Eason also hasn’t had the best luck. He’s been successful throughout his career in the minors and, although he did spend some time in Charlotte, was still stuck in AA last season. Eason was recently called up in Charlotte and was hit hard in his only appearance (eight runs, one inning).

 

39. Edgar Varela, 22 – Bats: Left - Throws: Right – 3rd Base – Kannapolis Intimidators (Low A Ball)

2003: .242 AVG, 0 HR, 18 RBI, 0 SB, 15 BB, 25 K

2002 (Bristol-Rookie): .330 AVG, 5 HR, 40 RBI, 0 SB, 13 SB, 29 K

 

Drafted in the 31st round out of Long Beach State (the same college which Jeremy Reed attended), Edgar Valera appears to be a steal for the Sox. Valera missed much of the 2002 season with a wrist injury, but the Sox took a gamble on his recovery. So far, so good: along with Anthony Webster, Andy Gonzalez, and others, Valera led the Bristol Sox to the Appalachian League championship in 2002. Valera had 8 home runs at Bristol, and was noted as having the best raw power from the Sox 2002 draft by Baseball America. Thus far in Kannapolis, Valera has struggled, hitting just six extra-base hits in 128 at bats. His current average stands at a respectable .268, but his on-base percentage is a mediocre .331. If Valera wants to prove that last year in Bristol was not a fluke, he must resume hitting with authority.

 

38. Casey Rogowski, 22 – L/L – 1st Base – Winston-Salem Warthogs (High A Ball)

2003: .248 AVG, 3 HR, 17 RBI, 8 SB, 25 BB, 27 K

2002 (Wiston Salem-A): .255 AVG, 3 HR, 23 RBI, 16 SB, 28 BB, 46 K

2002 (Arizona-Rookie): .484 AVG, 2 HR, 8 RBI, 2 SB, 1 BB, 5 K

 

Casey is a talented left-handed hitting first-baseman who’s got a beautiful swing and very good fundamentals. Casey is a great defensive player and an excellent base runner. He managed to get 16 steals (3 CS) in just 55 games. After suffering a wrist injury this past season, he is supposedly 100% and ready to further his career. Rogowski is not a power hitting first baseman: he fits the J.T. Snow role more than the Jim Thome role.

 

37. Thomas Brice, 21 – L/L - OF - Kannapolis Intimidators (Low A Ball)

2003: .287 AVG, 0 HR, 22 RBI, 2 SB, 17 BB, 23 K

2002 (Bristol-Rookie): .327 AVG, 0 HR, 20 RBI, 1 SB, 10 BB, 11 K

 

One of the more talented outfield prospects with the Sox, Brice had a very strong .327 debut for Bristol last season. This season started differently for Brice: he struggled early in the season, but has since raised his average to .287 with .363 OBP. Brice, a native of Australia, was drafted by the Sox in the 24th round. He is a great low ball hitter and has a very strong arm. The Sox think he could play right field defensively, but he would lack the overall pop of a prototypical outfielder. He’s yet to hit a homer this season, but most scouts feel that he’ll develop some power as he grows into his body. Brice doesn’t have that much to work on - he’s a very savvy hitter that already has shown good discipline, (although, until he reaches the pros, could always improve.) The big keys for him will be to put on more muscle and let his body fill out. Once he does that, he could shoot up the charts and increase his likelihood of reaching Chicago. If he doesn’t develop more power, he’d likely be more of a utility outfielder, but he does have the chance to be a solid everyday player.

 

36. Byeong Hak An, 22 - LHP, SP – Winston-Salem Warthogs (High A Ball)

2003: 7-2, 3.35 ERA, 51.0 INN, 33 K, 20 BB

2002 (Winston Salem-A): 2-0, 3.80 ERA, 21.1 INN, 11 K, 7 BB

2002 (Sarasota-A): 4-7, 5.33 ERA, 98.0 INN, 58 K, 33 BB

2001 (Sarasota-A): 2-8, 3.62 ERA, 119.1 INN, 84 K, 42 BB

 

An, a lefty, was acquired by the Sox last season in exchange for Bobby Howry. While not the most gifted pitcher, An has done nothing but excel during his tour of the minor leagues. An is a bit old to be pitching in A ball, but he’s making the best of it with seven wins and a 3.35 ERA. An has a chance to make the majors, but it’s likely that eventually he’ll join the bullpen, hoping to find his way as a lefty specialist. An is due for a call-up to Double A, and his numbers there will be quite a determinant of whether he has what it takes. His best pitch is a slurve, which he complements with a solid change and fastball (high 80’s).

 

35. Guillermo Reyes, 21 – S/R – Birmingham Barons (AA)

2003: .194 AVG, 1 HR, 11 RBI, 6 SB, 12 BB, 26 K

2002 (Charlotte-AAA): .308 AVG, 0 HR, 0 RBI, 2 SB, 0 BB, 1 K

2002 (Winston Salem-A): .279 AVG, 4 HR, 49 RBI, 30 SB, 35 BB, 71 K

2001 (Winston Salem-A): .208 AVG, 0 HR, 24 RBI, 16 SB, 14 BB , 33 K

2001 (Kannapolis-A): .279 AVG, 0 HR, 26 RBI, 29 SB, 27 BB, 30 K

2000 (Bristol-Rookie): .296 AVG, 3 HR, 31 RBI, 21 SB, 22 BB, 24 K

1999 (Arizona-Rookie): .250 AVG, 0 HR, 15 RBI, 18 SB, 20 BB, 25 K

 

Guillermo is one of the most talented middle-infield prospects in the organization. He has great speed, a strong arm, and great range. Unfortunately thus far he’s shown no offense, but, as one of the younger players in the Southern League, he has plenty of time to develop. He’s a bat away from being one of the best prospects in the game. In order to develop a better bat, he’ll have to cut down on the strikeouts and increase his walk total. Last season he made great strides at the plate, but those strides can’t be seen in Birmingham where he is hitting .194.

 

34. Wyatt Allen, 23 - RHP, SP – Winston-Salem Warthogs (High A Ball)

2003: 2-2, 3.78 ERA, 52.1 INN, 40 K, 38 BB

2002 (Charlotte-AAA): 0-1, 9.00 ERA, 5.0 INN, 2 K, 6 BB

2002 (Winston-Salem-A): 8-9, 4.45 ERA, 161.2 INN, 110 K, 80 BB

2001 (Kannapolis-A): 4-5, 3.16 ERA, 62.2 INN, 45 K, 16 BB

 

Despite having one of the best arms in the 2001 draft, Wyatt Allen’s mechanical problems allowed him to fall to 39th and into the White Sox’s open arms. Allen is considered to be a project for this organization. His delivery needs much work and, although he can reach 97 on the radar gun, he had a lot of trouble finding the catcher’s glove in 2002. Allen will need to harness his arm if he wants to excel in professional ball. The timetable for Allen is blurry at best: if he can locate his pitches and learn to perfect his mechanics, though, it won’t be long before he quickly moves up within the system.

 

33. Jason Stumm, 22 – RHP, RP – Winston-Salem Warthogs (High A Ball)

2003: 0-0, 4.50 ERA, 4.0 INN, 4 K, 1 BB

2002 (Kannapolis-A): 0-1, 2.25 ERA, 40.0 INN, 45 K, 12 BB, 5 SV

2001 (Arizona-Rookie): 0-2, 2.25 ERA, 12.0 INN, 12 K, 5 BB

2000 (Burlington-A): 2-7, 4.61 ERA, 66.1 INN, 62 K, 30 BB

1999 (Burlington-A): 3-3, 5.32 ERA, 44.0 INN, 33 K, 27 BB

1999 (Arizona-Rookie): 0-0, 3.27 ERA, 11.0 INN, 9 K, 3 BB

 

Jason Stumm was the 15th overall pick in 1999. Stumm, 21, was once a prospect projected to be a front-of- the-rotation starter. Numerous medical concerns have put his development to a halt and will force Stumm into the pen, as a future setup man or closer. After a season in which he pitched 12 innings (2001), Stumm returned to the mound in Kannapolis. The White Sox limited him to a strict pitch count, and no more than two-inning stints. Even with those precautions in place, Stumm still felt soreness and had to be shut down again in 2002. Stumm again had minor shoulder surgery following the season. When healthy, he has a wicked fastball that varies from 93-97, and is nearly un-hittable. Stumm was recently activated by Winston-Salem and has pitched in four games. He has had mixed success, but the key is having him back on the mound and on the road to health.

 

32. Tim Hummel, 24 – R/R – 2nd/SS/3rd – Charlotte Knights (AAA)

2003: .288 AVG, 3 HR, 23 RBI, 6 SB, 15 BB, 21 K

2002 (Charlotte-AAA): .260 AVG, 4 HR, 41 BB, 6 SB, 51 BB, 95 K

2001 (Birmingham-AA): .290 AVG, 7 HR, 63 RBI, 14 SB, 62 BB, 69 K

2000 (Winston-Salem-A):.327 AVG, 1 HR, 9 RBI, 1 SB, 13 BB, 12 K

2000 (Burlington-A): .326 AVG, 1 HR, 21 RBI, 8 SB, 21 BB, 20 K

 

Last season, Hummel was considered “the future.” This season, D’Angelo Jimenez is the present and future at second base. Hummel, known for his offense, struggled mightily in his first shot at AAA. He would rebound in the Arizona Fall League, hitting .303, while leading the league with an 18-10 walk to strikeout ratio. Despite a slow start, Tim is having a much better season and may have rejuvenated his status as a prospect. He has a very pretty stroke and good patience. He lacks the speed of a leadoff hitter, and would likely fit in the two hole or farther back in the lineup. Defensively, he can play anywhere in the infield and is solid at all positions. Hummel will likely make his major league debut later this season, and has a shot to be the starting second baseman next season with Jose Valentin entering free agency. If he doesn’t become a starter, look for him to be a very successful utility man.

 

31. Jim Bullard, 23 - LHP, RP – Birmingham Barons (AA)

2003: 1-1, 4.46 ERA, 36.1 INN, 21 K, 16 BB

2002 (Birmingham –AA): 0-3, 4.50 ERA, 20 INN, 12 K, 4 BB

2002 (Winston-Salem-A): 9-8, 3.32 ERA, 143.2 INN, 89 K, 47 BB

2001 (Kannapolis-A): 3-2, 3.00 ERA, 45.0 INN, 26 K, 6 BB

2001 (Bristol-Rookie): 1-2, 3.00 ERA, 21.0 INN, 31 K, 1 BB

 

I sometimes wonder how Jim Bullard ever ended up in the Sox organization. As stated earlier with Josh Rupe, the Sox are notorious for drafting pitchers solely on stuff alone, not weighing other factors such as polish or location. Bullard is almost the polar opposite, using his knowledge and location of his pitches to get hitters out. Bullard has put up solid numbers, especially last year’s 3.32 ERA for the Winston-Salem Hogs. After several starts at Birmingham, Bullard asked manager Wally Backman if he could be moved to the bullpen, where Bullard believes he has a better chance of making the majors. If he plans on doing so, he must somehow leapfrog left-handed prospects Royce Ring and Arnie Munoz, as well as current Sox lefties Kelly Wunsch, David Sanders, and Damaso Marte. Bullard might actually be better off suited in another organization where he may get the shot he deserves.

[whitesox61382]

Once again I don't think players over 25 should be considered prospects. I know that it has to be hard to find 50 guys to make a list from, thats usually why most prospect rankings only go up to 10. I think you should include guys that have fewer then 100 IP or 300 AB's at the major league level. That would give you a few more players and since they haven't played a full season in the majors I think they can be considered prospects.

 

I think Rogowski is to low. This kid doesn't do one thing great, but he does a lot of things good. To begin with he is a very good athlete for a 1st baseman(unlike Konerko). He has shown the ability to hit for average. He has solid power potential. He has very good plate disipline for a youngster. He has very good speed, espeically for a 1st baseman. And he is very good defensively. I think of a young Doug Minetkiewitz with a little more power potential and speed when I think of Rogowski. Could you not find his 2001 stats? If I am not mistaken that was his best year. He unfortunately was injuried for a good part of last year and got off to a slow start this year, but has gotten hot of late. Still I think he should at the very least be in the top 30, if not the top 20. I follow the minors very closely and I can't think of 20 guys that I would have ahead of him.

 

I also think that Hummel is to low as well. Like Rogowski I think that he belongs in the top 30, if not the top 20. He has a very good shot at making the roster next year, and I am willing to bet that a decent amount of the prospects that you have rated ahead of him will never reach the majors for an extended period of time. When you consider that you can see why he should be a little higher rated. This is a guy that has been consistantly in/around the top 10 when ESPN and other ranking systems come out. He was a 2nd round pick, so a lot has been expected of him, and for the most part he has put up pretty solid numbers in the minors.

 

I think Bullard is rated to high. The guy has never put up impressive numbers at any level and his stuff isn't that good. At 23 the clock is ticking and he has yet to put up a solid year in the upper minors. He will probably never be a major league pitcher and there is no reason why he should be rated ahead of guys like Rogowski and Hummel.

 

The rest of the prospects on your list appear to be ranked right where I would have them. Just because I disagree with you on a couple of rankings doesn't make my opinions right, so don't take them to harshly. Nice job and good luck with the rest of the list.

[Cerbaho-WG]

Bullard is ranked ahead of Hummel and Rogowski for this reason: He hasn't regressed as badly as Hummel and Rogowski. Hummel was a surefire bet to be the Sox 2nd baseman of the future, but he has been only mediocre the past two years, with the exception of his stint in the AFL. Rogowski has all the potential, but has never put up the stats to be recommended to be put higher. Both Rogowski and Hummel have been very disappointing this year, and Bullard has somewhat of an excuse because he is still getting situated to his bullpen role.

 

Hummel will not make the majors with Aaron Miles playing the way he his, and he honestly shouldn't. In my mind, he doesn't merit a promotion by hitting .278 with a .340 OBP in a hitters park.

[Cerbaho-WG]

Once again I don't think players over 25 should be considered prospects. I know that it has to be hard to find 50 guys to make a list from, thats usually why most prospect rankings only go up to 10. I think you should include guys that have fewer then 100 IP or 300 AB's at the major league level. That would give you a few more players and since they haven't played a full season in the majors I think they can be considered prospects.

 

All prospects on this list, are prospects. They have not exhausted their minimum stay at the big league level, so, they are still rookies, no matter how old.

[Chisoxfn]

I like Rogowski quite a bit. He's got good speed, a good eye but his average has been rather low lately.

 

I may of missed the 2000 stats. I was dying when I was doing the stats. It took me absolutely forever. I never ever want to do stat work, I know that much

 

With Hummel, I'd rate him ahead of a few people, namely Ryan Meaux who will be coming up in the next segment.

[whitesox61382]

All prospects on this list, are prospects. They have not exhausted their minimum stay at the big league level, so, they are still rookies, no matter how old.

Most scouts would disagree with you on the idea that a player over 25 is a prospect. I subscribe to many different propsect reports and they always say things like, although this 27 year old is having a good year at AAA he is too old to be considered a prospect. You see a ton of stuff like that. I do agree with the scouts and think that you need to make a cutoff. In my mind a prospect is unproven potential, but after 25 that potential begins to run dry, especially if you haven't stepped foot onto a major league field. Look at the last 10 years of baseball and tell me what percentage of players that make it to the majors for the first time after 25 become solid major leaguers? Answer, as close to 0% without hitting it. So I believe that players over 25 shouldn't be considered prospects because the percentage that become solid major leaguers are so small that you have a better shot at winning the lottery.

 

In regards to Bullard, the reason that he hasn't fallen of is because he has never put up good numbers to begin with. Check his stats. You really can't fall off when the guy has never posted an ERA below 3. Answer me this? Which 2 of the 3 have a better shot at the majors and more importantly becoming solid major leaguers? Answer Rogowski and Hummel. If you don't believe me ask any minor league expert of scout. Pose the same question to Sickle on ESPN and I guarantee you that he will say Rogowski and Hummel. Why? Because they are simply better prospects with more potential. In the end the only thing that matters is what they do at the major league level, so why have a guy with less of a chance to make the majors ranked ahead of prospects with a better shot.

 

In regards to Hummel, he was ranked in the top 10 by ESPN coming into the season for Sox prospects. Has he done anything to make him drop that much? I guess his .280+ average, solid gap power numbers, solid plate disipline, 6-6 in SB, and solid D from what I hear is enough to drop him 20+ spots. With all due respect to the people who put together this list, I have a little more respect for the experts that put together the ESPN list and the people at Baseball America and other minor league scouting reports, which all believe that at the very least he is one of the Sox top 15 prospects. Having him as high as 32 is ridiculous.

 

In regards to Rogowski, he had a great year in 2001 in I remember correctly. These are just estimates off the top of my head because I am to lazy to find his 01' numbers, but I think he hit in the .280-.290 range, with 15-20 HR's, 70-80 RBI's, 15-20ish SB, a high number of walks and almost a 1:1 BB:SO ratio. He was hurt for most of the 2002 season and when he came back reports said that he wasn't 100% so I think you have to kind of throw out his 2002 numbers. He got off to a slow start this year, possible still from his injury in 2001, but has been pretty hot of late and will probably see his numbers go up. The one thing that remains consistant with him is his plate disipline, which I am a huge fan of in a young player. Its usually a good sign that they will continue to hit at the upper minors and into the majors(the same can be said with Hummel and is one of the reason that I am one of the biggest Reed fans). Rogowski should probably be in the 15-20 range in the ranking.

 

I know that I am being a little harsh, but these are just my opinions. I follow the minors very closely and subscribe to multiple minor league reports that I generally follow when it comes to judging prospects. That in no why means that my opinions are right. I do appreciate the work that you guys put into this ranking. For the most part it is accurate. I will come up with my own 1-50 ranking just to compare. I will use my own guidelines, ie no one over the age of 25 and anyone with fewer than 100 IP or 300 AB's at the major league level is eligible

 

Just for fun. Whatever happened the Reyes is similar to Jeter comparison that you guys used last year? Sorry, I just found it rather funny that you compared a 5'6 SS who will probably be a utility infielder at the best to one of the top SS in the game.

[Chisoxfn]

I'm with you in all aspects that potential wise Rogowski and Hummel have more.

 

I do think some older guys, such as Yofu should be counted soley because they weren't there.

 

Also, remember BA counted Matsui and Contreras as prospects if I recall.

 

For the next list we'll make sure to make up a set of guildlines so its more cut and dry.

[Cerbaho-WG]

All prospects on this list, are prospects. They have not exhausted their minimum stay at the big league level, so, they are still rookies, no matter how old.

Most scouts would disagree with you on the idea that a player over 25 is a prospect. I subscribe to many different propsect reports and they always say things like, although this 27 year old is having a good year at AAA he is too old to be considered a prospect. You see a ton of stuff like that. I do agree with the scouts and think that you need to make a cutoff. In my mind a prospect is unproven potential, but after 25 that potential begins to run dry, especially if you haven't stepped foot onto a major league field. Look at the last 10 years of baseball and tell me what percentage of players that make it to the majors for the first time after 25 become solid major leaguers? Answer, as close to 0% without hitting it. So I believe that players over 25 shouldn't be considered prospects because the percentage that become solid major leaguers are so small that you have a better shot at winning the lottery.

 

In regards to Bullard, the reason that he hasn't fallen of is because he has never put up good numbers to begin with. Check his stats. You really can't fall off when the guy has never posted an ERA below 3. Answer me this? Which 2 of the 3 have a better shot at the majors and more importantly becoming solid major leaguers? Answer Rogowski and Hummel. If you don't believe me ask any minor league expert of scout. Pose the same question to Sickle on ESPN and I guarantee you that he will say Rogowski and Hummel. Why? Because they are simply better prospects with more potential. In the end the only thing that matters is what they do at the major league level, so why have a guy with less of a chance to make the majors ranked ahead of prospects with a better shot.

 

In regards to Hummel, he was ranked in the top 10 by ESPN coming into the season for Sox prospects. Has he done anything to make him drop that much? I guess his .280+ average, solid gap power numbers, solid plate disipline, 6-6 in SB, and solid D from what I hear is enough to drop him 20+ spots. With all due respect to the people who put together this list, I have a little more respect for the experts that put together the ESPN list and the people at Baseball America and other minor league scouting reports, which all believe that at the very least he is one of the Sox top 15 prospects. Having him as high as 32 is ridiculous.

 

In regards to Rogowski, he had a great year in 2001 in I remember correctly. These are just estimates off the top of my head because I am to lazy to find his 01' numbers, but I think he hit in the .280-.290 range, with 15-20 HR's, 70-80 RBI's, 15-20ish SB, a high number of walks and almost a 1:1 BB:SO ratio. He was hurt for most of the 2002 season and when he came back reports said that he wasn't 100% so I think you have to kind of throw out his 2002 numbers. He got off to a slow start this year, possible still from his injury in 2001, but has been pretty hot of late and will probably see his numbers go up. The one thing that remains consistant with him is his plate disipline, which I am a huge fan of in a young player. Its usually a good sign that they will continue to hit at the upper minors and into the majors(the same can be said with Hummel and is one of the reason that I am one of the biggest Reed fans). Rogowski should probably be in the 15-20 range in the ranking.

 

I know that I am being a little harsh, but these are just my opinions. I follow the minors very closely and subscribe to multiple minor league reports that I generally follow when it comes to judging prospects. That in no why means that my opinions are right. I do appreciate the work that you guys put into this ranking. For the most part it is accurate. I will come up with my own 1-50 ranking just to compare. I will use my own guidelines, ie no one over the age of 25 and anyone with fewer than 100 IP or 300 AB's at the major league level is eligible

 

Just for fun. Whatever happened the Reyes is similar to Jeter comparison that you guys used last year? Sorry, I just found it rather funny that you compared a 5'6 SS who will probably be a utility infielder at the best to one of the top SS in the game.

Then explain to me why Baseball America, basically the definitive source on anything minor league baseball, has included Jose Contreras, Hideki Matsui, Brandon Donnelly, etc. No matter how old you are, you are a prospect unless you have met the minimum requirements of not being a rookie according to the MLB standards. I don't care what you think personally, I care what MLB regards. Who has the better shot of making it to the bigs, I don't care how long, someone like say Aaron Kirkland or Jorge Nunez with sub-par numbers at a decent age, or Cliff Brumbaugh at 29 with good numbers at AAA. If you tell me Nunez or Kirkland, you are ouf of your mind. You can't discount people who are older than 25 as non-prospects, a bunch of major-leaguers never really "made it" until they were in their upper 20's. Should we just completely ignore them? Asinine.

 

I agree with you about Rogowski and Hummel having a better chance than Bullard to become solid major-leaguers, but why do I have to ask a scout or minor-league expert? That is THEIR perception and opinion, not mine. Stats don't lie, your eyes do. I don't care about what upside Player A has, or how many tools he has. Show me Player A's stats, that's all I need to see to judge.

 

Baseball America rated Hummel the #17 prospect in the Sox organization, and it's great for him to hit .278 with a decent OBP when he's repeating AAA again? Again, he's playing in a hitters park, and if the sabermetricians from say Baseball Prospectus had him playing in a neutral park, his stats would be s***. Aaron Miles and Ruddy Yan have blown by Hummel with ease, and I stcik by putting Hummel at 32. He's not going to play for the Sox over Miles, and maybe Yan if he pans out.

 

Rogowski does not deserve to be in the 15-20 range with the stats he's putting up right now. His power numbers are shoddy, and the only thing he really has going for him is his K:BB ratio and OBP. He's repeating High-A ball, I expect more out of him.

 

Again, your guidelines, to put it nicely, are s***. The MLB cutoff for rookies is the following: no age, 50 IP, I believe 200 ABs, and a certain amount of games. You're more than welcome to throw Willie Harris on your prospect list, it's just dumb as all hell to do so.

 

Also, I never compared Reyes to Jeter. Jason might have, but I wouldn't compared Reyes to Jeter. Jeter, top SS in the game, give me a break. He's an overrated singles hitter.

[Chisoxfn]

I don't think Jeter is that great. Reyes has a lot of ability, but has a lot to prove before he becomes a prospect. Now I doubt Reyes will ever be Jeter, so I'll take that one back

[aboz56]

I don't think Jeter is that great.  Reyes has a lot of ability, but has a lot to prove before he becomes a prospect.  Now I doubt Reyes will ever be Jeter, so I'll take that one back 

If Jeter isn't that great, what shortstops are besides A-Rod?

[Chisoxfn]

If Jeter isn't that great, what shortstops are besides A-Rod?

Jeter isn't great for 20 mill a year. He's a solid shortstop. I think Tejada is better then him as is Nomar and possibly Edgar Renteria.

 

If I were to compare Jeter to someone, it likely be Renteria in terms they are solid shortstops all around.

I think thats what Jeter is.

 

He's still one of the best.

[Rex Hudler]

Random thoughts...........

 

Clay Eason is not a prospect. Good guy, great AA pitcher, but not a pospect for the big leagues.

 

Bullard has a chance as a lefty specialist, ala Paul Assenmacher.

 

I agree that age should be considered when evaluating who is a prospect and who is not. I don't think there is a magical number, but it has to factor in. If you are evaluating a guy's ability to make the major leagues, then fine. But as a general rule, a prospect is someone who is looked at as having a chance to make an impact in the Majors. In my mind, that is why guys like Brumbaugh, Eason and Sanders should not be considered on prospect lists. Sure, if the stars are properly aligned at the right time, they could make the Show, but none of those guys have a chance to be an impact guy over time.

 

To me, age should be considered along with years in the Minors and what it has taken them to get where they are. To me, Yofu is a prospect only because he has never played American baseball before. If this were his 7th year in the Minors, I wouldn't care what numbers he is putting up now. But his window of opportunity is short. If he is not in the Majors by the end of 2004, then there is no prospect status for him.

 

Let's get off this "hitter's park" crap for Charlotte. I haven't seen many hitters at all leave Birmingham and go to Charlotte and put up appreciatively better numbers. Maybe a little better, but no major differeces. In fact, I am sure I can come up with as many examples of guys who hit worse (Borchard, Crede, Rowand) than did a lot better. Birmingham is indeed a pitchers park and the numbers support it. But I don't see the same variances consistently in Charlotte. It is certainly not a "bandbox" or "Coors East" as I have heard some say.

 

 

Stats don't lie, your eyes do. I don't care about what upside Player A has, or how many tools he has. Show me Player A's stats, that's all I need to see to judge.

 

That's crap. If that were true, there would be no need for scouts. You can hang on to your numbers all you want, but if you want to really know what is going on, then watch a few guys and then look at the numbers. Numbers can be VERY misleading and not just because of park variances. I am not saying stats are not important, because they are what makes the game of baseball great, but to say that there is no need to see a guy play is nuts.

 

You were busting on Hummel for only hitting .278 while repeating AAA, yet where will you rate Borchard? If your above statement is true, then I don't expect to see Borchard in the top 50 at all. His numbers, while also repeating AAA have been terrible. So I will assume then that Joe B is not on the list at all, by your reasoning.

 

I do respect the difficulty in coming up with this list, because I truly believe that the Sox really don't have 50 prospects. I don't think many organizations could claim they do. Keep tossing your opinions out there and we appreciate the work you do, just don't get offended when we disagree on some of it.

[Guest hotsoxchick1]

Stats don't lie, your eyes do. I don't care about what upside Player A has, or how many tools he has. Show me Player A's stats, that's all I need to see to judge.

stats are s***.... show me what your going to do not what you have done.....

one of my favorite hawkisms......

[Chisoxfn]

Don't worry Rex, I expect disagreements. There isn't an art to these type of things.

 

When coming up with our list we took age into account and mixed it with their stats. If a guy is older and hitting the crap out of the ball, we didn't want to forget about them, but we didn't think they deserved being too high up there either.

 

Hummel has been doing a lot better lately. I also agree with you that stats only say so much. A lot of guys pitch good down in A ball, but the true tests comes when you face more talent, like in AA. I really think AA is the place where you filter the creme of the crop. I mean the majors is the ultimate test, but good prospects need to suceed in AAA.

 

In regards to Borchard, no one really thought he should be where he was, but we all had different guys slotted to jump ahead of him and we knew he shouldn't fall that much. I guess that kind of hints as to where he is.

 

Of course its not likely he'll be on the next list if he's still playing in the majors and I tend to think he's gonna be there.

 

I think after a guy has played AAA more then three times then your looking at a guy that may not be as much of as prospect, but it also depends on the situation. He could be really young or simply be held back or could of been up and down a few years. There are exceptions to every rule, but overall I Think the best eventually filter themselves out and people know they are the cream of the crop. The Sox have a lot of guys on the back of the list or maybe even not on the list that could really shoot up the charts. The talent is there, but the talent is there on a lot of these guys.

[MurcieOne]

Well, it's good to know that if you dont like the list, we can atleast entertain everyone with a good laugh.

[whitesox61382]

"Then explain to me why Baseball America, basically the definitive source on anything minor league baseball, has included Jose Contreras, Hideki Matsui, Brandon Donnelly, etc."

 

That is questionable. Other minor league sources wouldn't consider them prospects. Contreras and Matsui are poor examples because they are straight to the majors. Find me a player that is 28 and has spent 10 years in the minors that BA calls a prospect?

 

"Cliff Brumbaugh at 29 with good numbers at AAA."

 

If you think this guy is going to ever be an everyday major leaguer, than you are solely mistaken and need to learn minor league prospects 101. Not only does age matter, but the level they are at. For example I follow this rule. If a player is over 25 at AAA, over 24 at AA, over 23 at high A, over 22 at low A, over 21 at high rookie ball, or 20 at low rookie ball then they are to old for that level and their numbers should be adjusted. The point is that Brumbaugh putting up good numbers and Nunez(although he is pretty old and a bad example since he is also over 25) putting up bad numbers have about the same chance of becoming everyday major leaguers. None.

 

"You can't discount people who are older than 25 as non-prospects, a bunch of major-leaguers never really "made it" until they were in their upper 20's. Should we just completely ignore them? Asinine."

 

Give me a list of major leaguer players that didn't step foot into a major league park without paying until they were 26 or older AND who has put up solid consistant numbers for a couple of years. Now compare that to the percentage of those that made it before 26 and are sucessful. You will find that players making it after 26 are the exception not the norm and they are very few if any. That is the point and you are not understanding it for some reason.

 

"Stats don't lie, your eyes do"

 

You are going to get a lot of people who disagree with you on this. Stats don't tell the whole story and yes the can be deceiving. Check some of the top players in the majors minor league stats and you will see that a good amount of them didn't put up impressive numbers in the minors. For example, Bagwell. He hit no more than 4 HR's in a season if I am not mistake off the top of my head, yet is one of the premier power hitter in the game. Another example is Johnson. He couldn't hit the ocean if he was standing on the beach in the minors(terrible walks numbers), yet he always had a ton of POTENTIAL/TOOLS and developed into one of the most dominating lefties every to play the game. I will leave it to you to look at some of the other top players, but you will find similar stuff. A good amount of the top players in the majors struggled some in the minors. It goes the other way too. Have you ever heard of Chad Mattola? He was in the Sox organization for a while. He was an AS at AAA, lead different levels in stats like RBI's, and has always put up good numbers in the minors, yet at 31 is still looking for someone to give him a chance in the majors. There are TONS of guys just like him that put up good numbers in the minors year in and year out, but never even make it to the majors. They are called AAAA players or career minor leaguers. But you are right numbers don't lie(sarcasm).

 

"I don't care about what upside Player A has, or how many tools he has. Show me Player A's stats, that's all I need to see to judge."

 

That is why you are not a scout or expert when it comes to prospects. See above paragraph on how numbers can be deceiving and how potential/tools are the reason some of the top players in the majors today developed even though they didn't put up good numbers in the minors. You have a lot to learn about prospects if numbers are the only thing you use to make judgements. No knowledgible scout on the minors uses only stats to rate prospects.

 

"Aaron Miles and Ruddy Yan have blown by Hummel with ease, and I stcik by putting Hummel at 32. He's not going to play for the Sox over Miles, and maybe Yan if he pans out."

 

You are in for a rude awakening if you think Miles and Yan have blown past Hummel. Yan is in A ball!!! Miles isn't a better prospect then Hummel. Numbers can be deceiving. I mean Harris was hitting .420, but what is his career major league average? You right though numbers don't lie. Maybe they have summer school to learn about how to rate prospects that you can attend? Miles has NO plate disipline whats so ever. Miles has made up ground on Hummel, but there is no way to say either way which is ahead of the other. I feel that Hummel is ahead because he has better plate disipline, which usually translates into a better hitter at the major league level.

 

"Rogowski does not deserve to be in the 15-20 range with the stats he's putting up right now. His power numbers are shoddy, and the only thing he really has going for him is his K:BB ratio and OBP. He's repeating High-A ball, I expect more out of him."

 

You realize that you are making assumptions based on 2 months worth of stats? I am sorry, but that sample size is way to small to make assumptions alone. You are blind and don't know much about prospects if you think walks are the only thing he has going fo him. What about the double digit stolen bases he is on pace for? Or the exceptional defense? Or the fact that he has started to heat up this past week? Once again it might only be speculation on my behalf, but I think his injury still might have an effect on him, especially a wrist injury that severly affects a persons swing. He just turned 22, so he is at the level he should be at for his age and the fact that he spent less then half a year there means that he should be back at high A ball(especially since he was still trying to recover from his injury in 2002). The fact is that in 2001 when he posted his great numbers at low A ball he was one of the younger prospects at that level, which makes his numbers even more impressive.

 

"Again, your guidelines, to put it nicely, are s***. The MLB cutoff for rookies is the following: no age, 50 IP, I believe 200 ABs, and a certain amount of games. You're more than welcome to throw Willie Harris on your prospect list, it's just dumb as all hell to do so."

 

And I along with most scouts and experts think your guidelines are s***, so we are even. I beleive most so-called experts would agree with my guidelines though. The fact that you base your ranking almost solely on stats shows that you know almost nothing about prospects or the minors. Like I said you need to go to summer school prospects 101. Since you want to list 50 prospects, which I think is way to much to begin with, I moved up the AB's by 100 and the innings by 50. Wow that is a huge difference that might include 1 or 2 extra players. Let me kiss your feet all knowledgible one, because you know everything about prospects and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong(that makes a lot of people who are getting paid to scout and make analysis wrong, but you are the second coming of God on the issue). The point is that you need guidelines and you haven't made any.

 

"Also, I never compared Reyes to Jeter. Jason might have, but I wouldn't compared Reyes to Jeter. Jeter, top SS in the game, give me a break. He's an overrated singles hitter."

 

I don't know who it was, but whoever did the analysis on Reyes compared him to Jeter. That and a couple of other analysis that were way off made me come to the conclusion that you guys were no more then fans putting together a list of prospects that you really know little about. You rate Hummel 32nd, while all the experts have him in the top 20. Lets see experts that get paid to do what they do who have probably seen him play in person or a bunch of guys that thought Reyes was the second coming of Jeter? Which is more credible? You don't have to agree with me, but don't pretend your opinions are facts or that you know more then the REAL scouts. I will say it again that you do a decent job and put some good work into the list, but you guys are the same as me, a fan that follows the minors. That makes none of us experts on the matter. However, cerbaho-WG, if you are actually interested in learn what real scouts look for in prospects I will give you the number to my uncle Mr. Levya who is one of the heads of foreign scouting for the Sox. We often talk about prospects and players that the Sox might draft/sign and some of the things that he looks for. If you told him that you rate prospects solely on stats or that you don't think age matters he would probably laugh in your face(not to be mean though). I am serious on this though. He is a real nice guy and loves just shooting the s*** about the Sox. He will give you a better understanding of how to judge prospects, so you and you buddies can come up with a more educated analysis and list.

[whitesox61382]

Here is my top 50, which is a hard list to come up with. I followed 2 guidelines to help draw lines. 1) Is that no player over 25 should be considered a prospect. 2) That anyone 25 or under and with fewer than 300 AB's or 100 IP's in the majors is eligible. I believe the rule for rookies is 200 AB's and 50 IP's, but I added a little to include 1 or 2 more players. I feel that guys 25 or under with less then a full year in the majors should be considered more of a prospect then a 28 year old career minor leaguer that is putting up good numbers but will probably never make the majors. I rate guys that have been in the majors pretty high considering that the main goal of a prospect is to make the majors and develop into a solid player, and they have accomplished that and half of the guys on this list will probably never make the majors, so the guys with major league experience should be rated higher in most cases. I don't rate guys that only have 1 year of minor league experience that high, because at this point it is hard to make assumptions based on 1 year in rookie ball(almostly solely based on potential at this point) and I am a huge fan of consistancy over a couple of years for prospects. With that said let the list begin:

 

50) McCarthy 19 (rookie) RHP

49) Bittner 22 (low A) RHP

48) Hummel 22 (low A) RHP

47) Holt 24 (high A) RF/LF

46) Varela 22 (low A) 3B

45) An 22 (high A) LHP

44) Spidale 21 (high A) CF

43) Brice 21 (low A) RF/LF

42) Lopez 19 (rookie) RHP

41) Reyes 21 (AA) SS

40) Bullard 23 (AA) LHP

39) Deininger 21 (low A) RHP

38) Haigwood 19 (rookie) LHP

37) Rodriguez 18 (rookie) LHP

36) Lopez 19 (low A) 2B

35) Stumm 22 (high A) RHP

34) Allen 23 (high A) RHP

33) Fransisco 23 (high A) RHP

32) Malone 22 (AA) LHP

31) Majewski 23 (AAA) RHP

30) Castro 21 (low A) RHP

29) Morse 21 (high A) SS

28) LaMura 22 (low A) LHP

27) Kolhmeier 25 (AAA) RHP

26) Ulacia 22 (AA) LHP

25) Rupe 20 (low A) RHP

24) Meaux 24 (high A) LHP

23) Schnurstein 18 (rookie) 3B

22) West 22 (AA) RHP

21) Phillips 21 (low A) LHP

20) Gonzalez 21 (low A) SS

19) Yan 22 (high A) 2B

18) Pacheco 24 (AA) RHP

17) Rogowski 22 (high A) 1B

16) Munoz 20 (AAA) LHP

15) Diaz 22 (AAA) RHP

14) Hummel 24 (AAA) 2B/3B

13) Sanders 23 (majors) LHP

12) Stewart 24 (AAA) LHP

11) Webster 20 (low A) CF

10) Ginter 25 (AAA) RHP

9) Harris 24 (majors) 2B/CF

8) Wing 21 (high A) LHP

7) Cotts 23 (AA) LHP

6) Ring 22 (AA) LHP

5) Reed 21 (high A) CF

4) Rauch 24 (AAA) RHP

3) Olivo 24 (majors) C

2) Borchard 24 (majors) CF/RF

1) Honel 20 (high A) RHP

 

Once you get past the top 20 it becomes a crapshoot. There are guys that I ranked around 48th that could arguable be ranked 22nd and vise-versa. I think this is an accurate ranking though. You will never see half of these guys in the majors though. You can argue or disagree with my list, but this is my opinion based on the prospects tools, their numbers, their age(and level they are at for their age), consistancy between levels, and scouting reports.

[Mathew]

How about him? 30+ rookies happen you are a prospect till you retire, there are many examples of that, Brumbagh could get there as easily as any of the rest of the 30th to 40th ranked there.

[whitesox61382]

How about him?  30+ rookies happen you are a prospect till you retire, there are many examples of that, Brumbagh could get there as easily as any of the rest of the 30th to 40th ranked there.

Like I said before guys who make it after 26 are the exception and not the norm. If you read carefully I also say something along the lines of making the majors for the 1st time after 26 and become a solid consistant player. Fewer then 400 career AB's at the major league level doesn't make a player a proven major league hittter. If he gets past 1000 or the equivalent of about 2 full seasons worth of AB's and is putting up solid numbers, than you can file him in the sucessful after 26 group. There are a few others as well that you could put in the sucessful 26+ group(I think you can classify Wunsch into that group), but the point is that it is rare, and for each guy 26+ that becomes a solid major leaguer there are hundreds of guys like Mottola that never make it. Since the percentage of guys that do become solid major leaguers after 26 is so low I don't include them as prospects. Its like the lottery your chances are next to none, but it could still happen. Call me a pessismist, but I think you need to draw guidelines and I think a fair guideline is no one over 26 should be considered a prospect. I also don't think that Brumbaugh will ever be a consistant major leaguer. Good numbers doesn't always doesn't always translate into major league sucess. Its as much, maybe even more, important to have potential/raw tools.

[Soxfest]

J.Stumm will not make it.

[Cerbaho-WG]

If I should go to Summer School Prospects 101, will the following stat heads be in attendance also?

 

Billy Beane

Paul DePodesta

Theo Epstein

J.P. Ricciardi

Bill James

Theo Epstein

 

Because if they are, then I'm in some pretty good company thinking like a moron.

[MnSoxFan]

Brice is too low, he should be higher up. He is a top 30 for sure. Bullard too high. Not sre where you heard Reyes has great speed and range, I do not believe that to be true, he is not a true SS.

[Chisoxfn]

Brice is too low, he should be higher up. He is a top 30 for sure. Bullard too high. Not sre where you heard Reyes has great speed and range, I do not believe that to be true, he is not a true SS.

I saw Guillermo in minor league camp and he looked like he was very fast running sprint and when playing shortstop he looked very smooth and covered good ground.

 

Of course its hard cause those weren't game situations. Still, I think there is some talent there. Whether it will ever develop, I doubt it. He doesn't look like he'll ever learn to hit.

 

Thomas Brice is really picking things up. I think he's gonna be a rather good player. He is a great contact hitter and he rips the cover off the ball. By rip the cover off the ball, I mean he hits it and hits it hard, doesn't hit it super far.

 

Also, I don't think Kohlmeirer should be on your list. I don't like him one bit. Plus, I think he may of exhausted his time to be considered a rookie. Don't quote me on that though, lol. I know he played for the Orioles and thought he may of been there long enough, service days wise.

[whitesox61382]

"If I should go to Summer School Prospects 101, will the following stat heads be in attendance also?

 

Billy Beane

Paul DePodesta

Theo Epstein

J.P. Ricciardi

Bill James

Theo Epstein

 

Because if they are, then I'm in some pretty good company thinking like a moron."

 

You are completely foolish if you think the guys above make their decisions based solely on stats.

 

As far as Kolhmeier is concerned I explained my guidelines. Then agains who ever said that a guy not eligible to be a rookie isn't a prospect? 100 IP and 300 AB's or less to me is a good a guideline because it means the player has less then a half of a year in the majors. I think a guy 25 or younger with some major league expereince, but fewer then the above guidelines is much more of a prospect then a 28 year old career minor leaguer putting up good numbers. Thats just my opinion and what I decided to use for guidelines.

[Chisoxfn]

Other then Kohlmeirer I thought the list was good.

 

I like Yan higher then Hummel though, personally. I think Hummel fits as a utility guy while Yan has a shot to be a stud leadoff hitter. Of course he has a lot to prove cause the numbers he's putting up right now don't mean much until he shows he can do it in AA.

 

Cerb's the gifted stat guy, I am a toolsy type guy. Thats why I think we'll make a good mix as future gm's