FutureSox Post-Season Top Prospects List

[simba43]

I don't think anyone is going to LOVE this list simply because there are so many players to choose from when you get outside of our top 6-8 or so. Personally I'm most surprised about Miguel Gonzalez missing this list after the season he had as a rookie catching prospect. I understand it because we don't know a ton about him yet, but it's just kind of odd because 18-year-old catchers who hit the baseball open eyes very quickly. There are a lot of players capable of making big leaps up the rankings over 2010, like Morel and Retherford did this year, and Gonzalez is one of those guys.

i agree i think this gonzales kid will be very good

 

[simba43]

i agree i think this gonzales kid will be very good

also love morel and retherford there not great tool type guys we all hear about . but there just ballplayers . For me thats what i want .

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I'll flat out say that Rodriguez and Holmberg are both two times that prospects that Upchurch is. Both have bigger and better arms and a lot more upside. UpChurch has potential but he's so freaking raw and he's not as good as the other two guys mentioned.

 

It is difficult though because Rodriguez has flaws and Holmberg is very very raw. Upchurch happens to be a favorite of a guy or two on the panel though and that can sway things.

 

Overall its a pretty complete list though and the good thing is there is a lot of reasons to argue because the depth of the Sox system is so much better.

And I would completely disagree with that.

 

This is a scouting report on Upchurch from the draft:

SCOUTING REPORT (3/1): Upchurch has barely started to fill out his lanky, 6-foot-5, 190-pound frame. He throws from an effortless, over-the-top release point with outstanding downhill angle to the plate. Upchurch throws mostly in the 90-92 mph range and gets good running action on his fastball when he heeps it down in the zone. He’ll add velocity as he fills out his body. His curveball and changeup are both potential plus pitches that he shows very good present feel for, though he needs to quicken his arm speed when throwing his curve. His arm action is pretty ideal for a slider as well. One of the things that Upchurch does best, aside from project through the roof, is attack hitters. He’s a very aggressive pitcher with a plan on the mound and the ability to throw strikes with all his pitches. As a high school junior, he went 5-4, 2.21 with 83 strikeouts in 59 innings. More innings and more strength could make him something special in the future.—DAVID RAWNSLEY

UPDATE (5/15): Upchurch went 13-0 as a high school senior and pitched Faith Academy to the Alabama Independent Schools Association state title. He was selected MVP of the final series, but more his bat as he went 7-for-8 with six RBIs and launched a 400-foot home run. He was touched up for 13 hits in a series-opening 7-6 win. That outing was somewhat indicative of the way he pitched this spring as he didn’t dominate better competition, even with a lively fastball that was clocked at 90-91 mph and topped at 93. He secondary stuff was adequate, but overall he did not show scouts the dominating stuff and command they expected to see after ranking behind only Destin Hood among Alabama high school prospects entering 2008. His loss in stature may pave the way for him to move on to Auburn.—ALLAN SIMPSON

I've seen video of him too and I really like him a lot. IMO there's nothing that says either Santos Rodriguez or Holmberg are much better prospects at this point. I could see calling them better prospects because they're lefties and had better years than Upchurch has, but that's about it. Santos' upside looks like a late inning reliever and both Holmberg and Upchurch are projectable starting prospects with high ceilings. I don't know why anyone would think Holmberg has a big arm but Upchurch does not. Both have two potential plus offerings and can get it into the low-90's. Both have clean deliveries and throw the ball with movement, and both were taken out of high school and have room to fill out a bit and add strength.

 

I'm one of those people who really like Upchurch, yet I still ranked him 20th and considered going even lower because he had such a terrible year. I ranked Santos Rodriguez 29th only because I couldn't find confirmation on his velocity until after the ranking as there were a lot of bad reports out there saying he was a low-90's guy, which I didn't think was the case at all. But I couldn't find the same reports I had read about Santos when we acquired him, so I dropped him lower than he would have been. I also had Holmberg 26th simply because he is raw and his debut wasn't amazing or anything. I could have definitely went a lot higher on Holmberg too, but I wanted to fit some other guys on there that I think deserved it more. But if I had to name 15 prospects in our system that I would most want to keep instead of a top-15 prospect list, both Holmberg and Upchurch would be on it, and several other players that I put above those guys like Shelby, Nunez, Santeliz, etc. would not be on there.

 

So that explains it from my side as an Upchurch fan. I strongly disagree with the people who don't consider Upchurch a good prospect but do consider players like Carlos Torres and Stephen Sauer good prospects because of their numbers, but that doesn't matter because it's just an opinion, and on the whole the FutureSox lists are good because they consider things from all points of view. And players that miss the list or appear too low only do so because they haven't performed better, and ultimately players of any talent level still have to perform well enough to advance levels and open eyes. Once they do they become no-brainer top-10 guys, at least in our system.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

also love morel and retherford there not great tool type guys we all hear about . but there just ballplayers . For me thats what i want .

IMO Morel and Retherford are two of the likeliest position players in our system to have MLB careers.

[scenario]

I'll flat out say that Rodriguez and Holmberg are both two times that prospects that Upchurch is. Both have bigger and better arms and a lot more upside. UpChurch has potential but he's so freaking raw and he's not as good as the other two guys mentioned.

 

It is difficult though because Rodriguez has flaws and Holmberg is very very raw. Upchurch happens to be a favorite of a guy or two on the panel though and that can sway things.

 

I'm with KHP on this. I'm not sure I see much if any difference in the projectability of Upchurch and Holmberg.

 

Is there something we're missing?

Edited October 15, 2009 by scenario

[NorthSideSox72]

And I would completely disagree with that.

 

This is a scouting report on Upchurch from the draft:

 

I've seen video of him too and I really like him a lot. IMO there's nothing that says either Santos Rodriguez or Holmberg are much better prospects at this point. I could see calling them better prospects because they're lefties and had better years than Upchurch has, but that's about it. Santos' upside looks like a late inning reliever and both Holmberg and Upchurch are projectable starting prospects with high ceilings. I don't know why anyone would think Holmberg has a big arm but Upchurch does not. Both have two potential plus offerings and can get it into the low-90's. Both have clean deliveries and throw the ball with movement, and both were taken out of high school and have room to fill out a bit and add strength.

 

I'm one of those people who really like Upchurch, yet I still ranked him 20th and considered going even lower because he had such a terrible year. I ranked Santos Rodriguez 29th only because I couldn't find confirmation on his velocity until after the ranking as there were a lot of bad reports out there saying he was a low-90's guy, which I didn't think was the case at all. But I couldn't find the same reports I had read about Santos when we acquired him, so I dropped him lower than he would have been. I also had Holmberg 26th simply because he is raw and his debut wasn't amazing or anything. I could have definitely went a lot higher on Holmberg too, but I wanted to fit some other guys on there that I think deserved it more. But if I had to name 15 prospects in our system that I would most want to keep instead of a top-15 prospect list, both Holmberg and Upchurch would be on it, and several other players that I put above those guys like Shelby, Nunez, Santeliz, etc. would not be on there.

 

So that explains it from my side as an Upchurch fan. I strongly disagree with the people who don't consider Upchurch a good prospect but do consider players like Carlos Torres and Stephen Sauer good prospects because of their numbers, but that doesn't matter because it's just an opinion, and on the whole the FutureSox lists are good because they consider things from all points of view. And players that miss the list or appear too low only do so because they haven't performed better, and ultimately players of any talent level still have to perform well enough to advance levels and open eyes. Once they do they become no-brainer top-10 guys, at least in our system.

Just to add to the whole tools/projectability versus performance argument, are three other scales. One is level - the higher the level of play, the more the balance shifts towards actual performance. Two is age, of course. And three is what you mean by "performance". Sauer's core numbers are pretty good, but what really sticks out is the outstanding K and BB ratios. Even at a low level, those numbers have meaning.

 

[Chisoxfn]

I'm with KHP on this. I'm not sure I see much if any difference in the projectability of Upchurch and Holmberg.

 

Is there something we're missing?

Holmberg's a lefty with better secondary stuff, imo. Upchurch made huge regressions this past season and didn't flash that promising of stuff from what I've heard.

 

I'm not writing the kid off and he's got a bright future, but I'd put Holmberg ahead of him. And I'm not putting Torres, Sauer or others ahead of Upchurch on an upside chart (on a sidenote). I lean heavily towards stuff, but Ithink Upchurch, along with Nev, get a little bigger following than they should.

 

Although both are the type of guys I like the Sox to go after (high risk/high reward types). Upchurch was a great pick for when we got him and I do hope it pans out.

 

Santos has a huge arm from the left side and his command is slowly improving. He's got a shot to be a light's out set-up man and Holmberg is a more refined lefty with good secondary stuff and an arm that has been getting stronger.

 

Both passed Upchurch on my prospect scale...thats all I'm saying.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Just to add to the whole tools/projectability versus performance argument, are three other scales. One is level - the higher the level of play, the more the balance shifts towards actual performance. Two is age, of course. And three is what you mean by "performance". Sauer's core numbers are pretty good, but what really sticks out is the outstanding K and BB ratios. Even at a low level, those numbers have meaning.

The bolded part I agree with most of the time, but it depends upon the case. For example, there's a discussion about Sergio Santos and Justin Cassel in the AFL thread. Even though Sergio Santos is not considered a prospect anymore while Cassel is, and even though Cassel has had good success statistically in his minor league career (albeit not this season) while Santos is a freshly-converted relief pitcher, I still would much rather have Santos in my system than Cassel. There's a point players get to where they just don't have enough to get it done in the Majors but they do in the minors, so for that reason I always put tools and scouting reports above everything else.

 

I also don't see age as a really huge factor when it comes to pitchers. I mean it is a big factor of course, and it's ually one of the first things you look at, but stuff, mechanics, and mound presence are all more important than age IMO. But if you have two very good pitching prospects, and one is 20 in low-A while the other is 20 in AA, obviously the guy in AA is going to be considered a much better prospect.

 

Sauer's K/BB numbers are very, very good overall, but I think that stat is pretty much useless anyway. His overall numbers are definitely good, but his H/9 is high and his K rate is below 8. Control and deception make up that K/BB ratio, but his H/9 shows he's hittable. What happens in the higher levels where he's throwing the ball over the plate to better right-handed hitters? He'll still get that sink on the ball, and he'll still get that deception, and the HR/9 rate should be pretty low for Sauer throughout his minor league career, but he'll give up more line shots as he climbs. I just don't think he is a starting prospect and I don't think his arm is enough to rank him above some of our other relief prospects. The K/BB ratio is great but it isn't sustainable, especially as a starter because lefties have hit him very well.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Holmberg's a lefty with better secondary stuff, imo. Upchurch made huge regressions this past season and didn't flash that promising of stuff from what I've heard.

 

I'm not writing the kid off and he's got a bright future, but I'd put Holmberg ahead of him. And I'm not putting Torres, Sauer or others ahead of Upchurch on an upside chart (on a sidenote). I lean heavily towards stuff, but Ithink Upchurch, along with Nev, get a little bigger following than they should.

 

Although both are the type of guys I like the Sox to go after (high risk/high reward types). Upchurch was a great pick for when we got him and I do hope it pans out.

 

Santos has a huge arm from the left side and his command is slowly improving. He's got a shot to be a light's out set-up man and Holmberg is a more refined lefty with good secondary stuff and an arm that has been getting stronger.

 

Both passed Upchurch on my prospect scale...thats all I'm saying.

This makes sense then. I could definitely see putting Holmberg above Upchurch but I still like both of their chances. Agree on Griffith too. I ranked him really high but that's mainly because our SP depth is mostly all in the lower levels now.

 

I like Rodriguez a lot too, and having failed to sign Morgado we're lucky to have him, even if he's far away. The only issue I took exception with was saying they were both twice the prospects that Upchurch is, which I disagree, but I understand your points now.

[NorthSideSox72]

The bolded part I agree with most of the time, but it depends upon the case. For example, there's a discussion about Sergio Santos and Justin Cassel in the AFL thread. Even though Sergio Santos is not considered a prospect anymore while Cassel is, and even though Cassel has had good success statistically in his minor league career (albeit not this season) while Santos is a freshly-converted relief pitcher, I still would much rather have Santos in my system than Cassel. There's a point players get to where they just don't have enough to get it done in the Majors but they do in the minors, so for that reason I always put tools and scouting reports above everything else.

 

I also don't see age as a really huge factor when it comes to pitchers. I mean it is a big factor of course, and it's ually one of the first things you look at, but stuff, mechanics, and mound presence are all more important than age IMO. But if you have two very good pitching prospects, and one is 20 in low-A while the other is 20 in AA, obviously the guy in AA is going to be considered a much better prospect.

 

Sauer's K/BB numbers are very, very good overall, but I think that stat is pretty much useless anyway. His overall numbers are definitely good, but his H/9 is high and his K rate is below 8. Control and deception make up that K/BB ratio, but his H/9 shows he's hittable. What happens in the higher levels where he's throwing the ball over the plate to better right-handed hitters? He'll still get that sink on the ball, and he'll still get that deception, and the HR/9 rate should be pretty low for Sauer throughout his minor league career, but he'll give up more line shots as he climbs. I just don't think he is a starting prospect and I don't think his arm is enough to rank him above some of our other relief prospects. The K/BB ratio is great but it isn't sustainable, especially as a starter because lefties have hit him very well.

 

I was agreeing with your post, until the bolded. The very low walk rate is very meaningful, because as he refines his pitches, he already has the ability to control well, so those refinements will be more effective. And his K rate isn't spectacular by itself, but having it as high a ratio to his BB rate tells me a lot. And the fact that he's not a high K pitcher by nature and still getting near 8 on his K/9, for a control-reliant pitcher, is a good thing. I think it is a very positive sign.

 

 

[Ozzie Ball]

Sauer's K/BB numbers are very, very good overall, but I think that stat is pretty much useless anyway. His overall numbers are definitely good, but his H/9 is high and his K rate is below 8. Control and deception make up that K/BB ratio, but his H/9 shows he's hittable. What happens in the higher levels where he's throwing the ball over the plate to better right-handed hitters? He'll still get that sink on the ball, and he'll still get that deception, and the HR/9 rate should be pretty low for Sauer throughout his minor league career, but he'll give up more line shots as he climbs. I just don't think he is a starting prospect and I don't think his arm is enough to rank him above some of our other relief prospects. The K/BB ratio is great but it isn't sustainable, especially as a starter because lefties have hit him very well.

Firstly I disagree strongly with your K/BB comment, the ability to strike out batters and not walk batters is pretty key in my opinion, obviously you still need to look at the K/9 and BB/9 separately because you could have a 5:1 K/BB with only a 5 K/9, but on the whole, K/BB is a very good indicator of pitching ability.

 

One year of H/9 data doesn't show he's hittable, it shows he was hit. Batting averages fluctuate greatly and can be affected by many factors that a pitcher cannot control, namely team defense and luck. His BABIP against was high and his line drive percentage was low, that doesn't add up. I'd be willing to bet significant money that his H/9 will fall next year despite playing at a (presumably) higher level.

 

I would not look at H/9 rates, if you have a high strikeout rate and a low walk rate then, chances are, your stuff is good regardless of the H/9 (age to league relevance permitting).

[scenario]

Upchurch did show some regression statistically this year... But if you compare the first 7 games he pitched in pro ball (last season) to Holmberg's first 7 games in pro ball (this season)... Upchurch was better.

 

So, was it a matter of regression for Upchurch or just the challenges of a 19 year old right out of high school going through his first full professional season? (rather than a draft-year short season). I think, IMO, that it's likely the latter, and we could see something similar happen to Holmberg next year.

 

Anyway... I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure their stuff/ability is much different, or that the statistics from both pitchers this year are really very useful to illustrate a difference.

 

So I ranked Upchurch ahead of Holmberg because IMO they're similar players but Upchurch has one more year of professional experience/development.

 

But I'm willing to be influenced to change that opinion.

Edited October 15, 2009 by scenario

[ThunderBolt]

Holmberg and Upchruch actually do have a bit in common. Both were highly touted arms down south, with projectable frames, and a solid selection of pitches and both were seen as guys who needed to refine their approach, rather then transform it. I think what really pushes Holmberg here is that he's a lefty. And the White Sox system is almost totally devoid of solid LHP's from A-Ball on up.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Firstly I disagree strongly with your K/BB comment, the ability to strike out batters and not walk batters is pretty key in my opinion, obviously you still need to look at the K/9 and BB/9 separately because you could have a 5:1 K/BB with only a 5 K/9, but on the whole, K/BB is a very good indicator of pitching ability.

 

One year of H/9 data doesn't show he's hittable, it shows he was hit. Batting averages fluctuate greatly and can be affected by many factors that a pitcher cannot control, namely team defense and luck. His BABIP against was high and his line drive percentage was low, that doesn't add up. I'd be willing to bet significant money that his H/9 will fall next year despite playing at a (presumably) higher level.

 

I would not look at H/9 rates, if you have a high strikeout rate and a low walk rate then, chances are, your stuff is good regardless of the H/9 (age to league relevance permitting).

BB/9 and K/9 rates are very important. I see no reason however for dividing strikeout total by walk total and using that number to judge anything. You can see a player's control through BB/9 and you can see how many K's he gets through K/9. Look at his splits. He keeps the ball down and has sink on it, which along with his control accounts for all those groundballs. Vs. RH he hides the ball well and he racks up K's and a low BAA because of it, as right-handed hitters pick up the ball late against him. Against lefties he loses that deception and that .338 BAA vs. LH and 5.8 K/9 is a testament to both that and his overall lack of dominating stuff. Notice how his control is excellent vs. both lefties and righties. That alone should discount overall K/BB ratio because that number is grossly misleading. He's not a K pitcher, he's a control + deception pitcher, and his great numbers come about when he has both control and deception in his favor. Because most hitters Sauer will face are right-handed, his overall numbers look good. But I don't think those gaps between BAA vs. LH and BAA vs. RH and K/9 vs. RH and K/9 vs. LH are going to start closing anytime soon.

 

I really don't get into BABIP and so on because I don't believe in all that stuff. Each player is different, and I've gone through those topics before, so I'm not getting into it now. Some people love those stats and others don't, and nobody is switching sides.

 

Sauer is hittable because he doesn't have what you'd call electric stuff by any means. He has movement, but it's not like he has stuff that can be devastating.

 

I don't know how you can overlook H/9, because the majority of hits recorded are going to be on balls the batter got good wood on, and the higher your H/9 generally means the easier it is for an opposing hitter to square up the ball against you, so therefore H/9 can be a pretty decent indicator of stuff or lack thereof. That isn't to say that there can't be aberrations, but pitchers with control as excellent as Sauer who still give up a lot of hits worry me. And although I don't believe in luck, I do believe in poor defense costing pitchers hits, and bad management/game calling/etc. doing the same, but you can only go so far with that. Having a high H/9 with great control is probably most often going to mean not very good stuff. If you have above-average stuff and you can control it as well as Sauer can then people aren't going to hit you, i.e. Danny Hudson of the 6.5 career minor league H/9 ratio.

 

You can bet that his H/9 will take a step down. Maybe it well. But I'll bet that he's another Ehren Wassermann and not one of our top-30 prospects.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I was agreeing with your post, until the bolded. The very low walk rate is very meaningful, because as he refines his pitches, he already has the ability to control well, so those refinements will be more effective. And his K rate isn't spectacular by itself, but having it as high a ratio to his BB rate tells me a lot. And the fact that he's not a high K pitcher by nature and still getting near 8 on his K/9, for a control-reliant pitcher, is a good thing. I think it is a very positive sign.

His control is very important. I agree with that and also that it will help him as he develops, because it is a HELL of a lot easier to develop a secondary pitch when you can throw it 0-2 as opposed to 2-0.

 

His K rate only is apparent vs. RH and it only tells me he has deception. I don't consider him a non-prospect or anything, just a righty specialist prospect. I've said before in another thread that I like him, so I don't want it to sound that I don't, but I just see a ton of other guys in our system that I'd rank above him. We have two other righty specialist guys in Drew O'Neill and Kyle Bellamy. I'd put him in that group, and I'd rank every player who I see with a ceiling of either middle reliever (vs. both lefties and righties), setup man, closer, everyday position player, or top-4 SP prospect ahead of him.

[scenario]

Until guys hit High-A ball or even AA-ball.... Tools >>>>>>>>>>> Stats

 

So I don't put much stock in rookie league numbers, especially for comparison purposes.

 

What's the old quote? “Some people use statistics like a drunken man uses lamp-posts . . . for support rather than illumination”... or something like that.

 

Stats in the low minors should illuminate potential opportunities and problems... Not be used for more than that.

 

Especially not to support arguments comparing the potential of two rookie-league players.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Until guys hit High-A ball or even AA-ball.... Tools >>>>>>>>>>> Stats

 

So I don't put much stock in rookie league numbers, especially for comparison purposes.

 

What's the old quote? “Some people use statistics like a drunken man uses lamp-posts . . . for support rather than illumination”... or something like that.

 

Stats in the low minors should illuminate potential opportunities and problems... Not be used for more than that.

 

Especially not to support arguments comparing the potential of two rookie-league players.

100% agree with all of this.

 

It's important to remember too that players are working on things. If you see a power pitcher for example who is giving up a lot of hits and walking the world, then that just means he's there because he's working on control. You can't use his numbers for a whole lot other than to, as you say, identify problems and opportunities. You may be able to look at his numbers and see his exceptional wildness and then place a guess on him where you say something like, "I don't think the odds are in his favor" with other elements such as age, secondary stuff, attitude, etc. helping to form your opinion. But, you can at least look at what he has physically and say that, "If he ever gets it together, this guy is going to play in the Majors." There are lots of other players out there however that maybe have great numbers, but when you look at them you say, "If he continues along at this pace, and he hits/pitches well at every level, and if another team has a need and is willing, then maybe he'll get a shot to play in the Majors."

 

I'll take toolsy "athletes" over smart "baseball players" any day of the week when it comes to prospects. For the Major League team that is another story entirely, but when it comes to players of whom few develop into solid or better players and who are mostly there to be used as trade chips, then I look for natural ability above all else.

[danman31]

For example, there's a discussion about Sergio Santos and Justin Cassel in the AFL thread. Even though Sergio Santos is not considered a prospect anymore while Cassel is

People think of Cassel as a prospect? Fringe at best. No one put him in their top 30. That's an extreme example.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

People think of Cassel as a prospect? Fringe at best. No one put him in their top 30. That's an extreme example.

I agree he is fringe, but that was kind of what I was saying. We have other fringe guys in our list too IMO. I was just using Cassel and Santos as examples since I had been looking at the AFL thread.

[NorthSideSox72]

I agree he is fringe, but that was kind of what I was saying. We have other fringe guys in our list too IMO. I was just using Cassel and Santos as examples since I had been looking at the AFL thread.

Once you get below about #10 or so, as others have stated, there is a whole batch of players (through to about #30 or so) in our system right now that are very similar in potential (just differences in how developed they are versus ceiling, how their results are versus projectability, etc.). Hard to really get on someone for a guy being 15 versus 20, or 30 versus 25.

 

I have Cassel as my AAP, so I should be his biggest cheerleader, but even I realize he is fringey at best, and he didn't even make my Top 30.

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Once you get below about #10 or so, as others have stated, there is a whole batch of players (through to about #30 or so) in our system right now that are very similar in potential (just differences in how developed they are versus ceiling, how their results are versus projectability, etc.). Hard to really get on someone for a guy being 15 versus 20, or 30 versus 25.

 

I have Cassel as my AAP, so I should be his biggest cheerleader, but even I realize he is fringey at best, and he didn't even make my Top 30.

If I've interpreted this correctly then I mostly agree. There are a lot of names to consider for any number of reasons. I said before though in this thread that 1) probably nobody is going to like the list because it's such a mixed bag, 2) the list overall is a good one for those reasons, and 3) that players who are seen as too high or too low simply haven't defined themselves, so it's hard to argue a whole lot about their placement - and even if you do want to argue about it (like I've done) then you still can't really put any one player in any one specific spot, it's more or less a window IMO, like somewhere between 11-14, or 19-24, etc.