2018 Prospect Rankings: Baseball Prospectus

[dbminn]

Baseball Prospectus has released their Twins top-ten list for 2018. Lamonte Wade makes an appearance, along with youngsters Lewis, Javier, Graterol, Enlow and Baddoo.

[nytwinsfan]

The difference between this list and BA was that Wade and Baddoo were subbed in for Jay and Kirilloff.  I found it strange that the Baseball Prospectus thought Enlow's curveball was just another decent pitch, while almost everyone else i've read who scouted him called it potentially the best curveball in the entire draft class.  Not sure what to make of that. Just a little strange.

[Seth Stohs]

I mean, Kirilloff has to be a Top 10 guy... it's a loaded system, but he's such an immense offensive talent. His upside is a #3 hitter in MLB for a long time. 

 

Then again, I like that Baddoo and Wade are in the top ten too, so that's that beauty of these lists. Not everyone is going to agree, and there is the discussion.

[Seth Stohs]

I always think this is the best way to look at an organization's system, at least in term of projection... Here is BP's look at the Top 10 Twins players under 25. 

 

https://twitter.com/AaronGleeman/status/953281637650907136

 

[Deduno Abides]

An optimistic question about Wade is whether he could be one of those players who have doubles power and control of the strike zone in the minors and then become home run hitters in the majors, with the different ball.

[clutterheart]

 

I mean, Kirilloff has to be a Top 10 guy... it's a loaded system, but he's such an immense offensive talent. His upside is a #3 hitter in MLB for a long time. 

 

Then again, I like that Baddoo and Wade are in the top ten too, so that's that beauty of these lists. Not everyone is going to agree, and there is the discussion.

 

 

Kirilloff looks to be a good bat, but I don't think I have seen the word's "immense offensive talent" linked to him before.  I think a case can be made for him to slip out of the top 10 - especially a national list.  He doesn't have a lot of positional value, and he didn't play at all last year.  Lots of prospect lists will ding a guy for that - especially a guy who hasn't been above Rookie ball.  

[70charger]

 

I mean, Kirilloff has to be a Top 10 guy... it's a loaded system, but he's such an immense offensive talent. His upside is a #3 hitter in MLB for a long time. 

 

Then again, I like that Baddoo and Wade are in the top ten too, so that's that beauty of these lists. Not everyone is going to agree, and there is the discussion.

 

I just don't agree, and I'm happy to see Baddoo and Wade above him, not in the least because it recognizes the fact that Wade has proved it at his high level (AA), and Baddoo significantly outperformed Kiriloff at the same level (Elizabethton). Kiriloff has proven nothing at all, doing pretty decently in only a partial season in the rookie league and then missing a year. By the way, Baddoo's OPS was 1.057 at E-town. Kiriloff managed an only decent .794.

 

Aside from that, Kiriloff - to me, and feel free to disagree - has Todd Marinovich written all over him. According to my cloudy crystal ball, he'll be amazing as a high school prospect, good as a minor leaguer, will probably make the big leagues, but won't amount to anything there. (Later drug addiction is optional but not recommended.)

 

I am extremely skeptical of prospects with parents who are both high-level coaches and helicopters. Where's the projectability longer term? 

 

In any case, I hope to be wrong about Kiriloff, but not about Wade or Baddoo.

[Tomj14]

 

I always think this is the best way to look at an organization's system, at least in term of projection... Here is BP's look at the Top 10 Twins players under 25. 

 

https://twitter.com/AaronGleeman/status/953281637650907136

 That is a pretty good list, my only issue with it is Polanco over Kepler. I would think most teams would give us more in a trade for Kepler than Polanco, and if not we should be using Polanco as trade bait for a pitcher.

[Thrylos]

 

 That is a pretty good list, my only issue with it is Polanco over Kepler. I would think most teams would give us more in a trade for Kepler than Polanco, and if not we should be using Polanco as trade bait for a pitcher.

 

Check their career numbers pretty similar with Polanco's slightly better; plus you are comparing a SS to a corner OF of same age.  Another important thing is that Polanco hits lefties and righties equally well, while Kepler is Butterible against LHP. 

[Thrylos]

In the OP having Wade and Gordon in those positions is borderline bizarre.   Looks like the author (Jeffrey Patternoso) does prospect lists from every team...

 

Gleeman's list is even more bizarre for many reasons, the least of it is over-rating Berrios, Gordon, and Buxton, underrating Sano and Javier and excluding Graterol.  It is a "talent" list, and as far as talent goes, Graterol runs circles over Gonsalves...

 

Definitely the same bias towards drafted vs IFA players you see in most lists out there...

[Pitz]

 

In the OP having Wade and Gordon in those positions is borderline bizarre.   Looks like the author (Jeffrey Patternoso) does prospect lists from every team...

 

Gleeman's list is even more bizarre for many reasons, the least of it is over-rating Berrios, Gordon, and Buxton, underrating Sano and Javier and excluding Graterol.  It is a "talent" list, and as far as talent goes, Graterol runs circles over Gonsalves...

 

Definitely the same bias towards drafted vs IFA players you see in most lists out there...

I suspect Graterol would be the next person on the list. That puts him only 2 spots behind Gonsalves. And it's not really that bizarre given that Graterol has pitched so little and only at rookie levels while Gonsalves has put together a very strong minor league career. Gonsalves also has a higher likelihood of being a starting pitcher as there are concerns that Graterol ends up in the bullpen.

 

I see that you are making a "talent" argument and yes, Graterol has a higher ceiling but that also comes with substantially more risk. But if you're making the "talent" argument, how can you also argue that Buxton and Berrios are overrated. 

 

Perhaps there is a draft vs. IFA bias on many lists, but I'm not sure having a bias in the other direction helps. I guess maybe it helps balance the bias.