2020 Baseball America Top 100 Prospects

[amjgt]

MLB Pipeline on MLB.com seems to be crazy low on Twins prospects.

 

Alex Kirilloff is #10 in their OF rankings. Larnach not mentioned

[bird]

 

For what it's worth, Fangraphs actually has Duran ranked ahead of both Graterol and Balazovic.

 

 

FanGraphs has the three bunched together as our 4,5,and 6 prospects. All received 50 FV values, as did Kirilloff and Larnach, who FanGraphs has as our #2 prospect now. Lewis is in lofty territory with them, two grades up at 60 FV.

 

FG has Duran's ETA as 2020, which indicates a pretty high belief in the guy.

[bird]

 

I am with you.  I am not for giving away prospects, but the truly great players are already on rosters by now and we have seen the Gordons and Gonsalves excitement slip away with the years.  If we can move them on a really good pitcher I am for it, but it has to be really good.

 

 

Neither Gonsalves or Gordon were ever really thought of in the same way as Kirilloff and Lewis. Those last two could easily go either way: they could shoot up the board or they could languish. Shooting up the board was never thought to be something we'd see from Gordon, whose ceiling was "decent every day 2B, or Gonsalves, whose ceiling was back end starter.

[howieramone2]

 

Trading Lewis/Kirilloff for Thor sounds pretty good right now eh? That’s why I am always up for trading prospects... Lewis needs a big year at the plate to get back to top 10. If Kirilloff is indeed an elite prospect, he needs to be on the MLB team this year. He’s not getting any younger...

Several months ago MLBTR or MLB.com., I don't remember which, had Thor on their 20 most overrated players list. After reading the article, my thought was Chris Archer. Maybe one of our members will use the new arithmetic, and take a deeper look. I do know the Mets G.M. announced for all to hear, several times, he would not be available this offseason.

[Dman]

 

MLB Pipeline on MLB.com seems to be crazy low on Twins prospects.

 

Alex Kirilloff is #10 in their OF rankings. Larnach not mentioned

 

Yeah what Bleday did in High A compared to Larnach makes his list a joke. He gives Bleday a 60 power rating and Larnach 50 and Larnach completely outslugged him this year.  Yeah I get it is all about potential but they are the same age and Larnach is just better.  Hey he can decide potential any way he wants but the list looks biased to me.  Given what I have seen the top 10 doesn't really mean much just something to put together and talk about.  

 

Winning these lists is nice but doesn't mean much as Garver and Arraez say Hello.  They were never on these lists and Garver was one of the best catchers in MLB last year and Arreaz was in rookie of the year conversations.  They couldn't have bought there way onto one of these top 10 lists in MILB?  The talent experts only can predict so much.  I think he is dead wrong not to have Larnach on there though.

 

Kirrilloff had a down year.  with only a 750 OPS he is about as high as he could put him in fact statistically I bet there were better options but his stats from last year probably helped him hang on this year.

 

Same for Lewis he had a down year and is living off of last years stats and potential.

[Ben Noble]

 

FanGraphs has the three bunched together as our 4,5,and 6 prospects. All received 50 FV values, as did Kirilloff and Larnach, who FanGraphs has as our #2 prospect now. Lewis is in lofty territory with them, two grades up at 60 FV.

 

FG has Duran's ETA as 2020, which indicates a pretty high belief in the guy.

 

Exactly, rated the same but ranked differently. Not sure why it seems that so many on this board would be unwilling to move Graterol or Balazovic (unless perhaps for a true ace), but I regularly see Duran get thrown into hypothetical trade propositions seemingly as an afterthought. Do people confuse him with Alcala?

 

I wonder if those that still cry foul at the Escobar trade would feel differently if we had swapped a pending free agent for Graterol or Balazovic, rather than Duran. 

 

Personally, I've been really high on Duran since we acquired him. But more than anything, I'm extremely excited to have three starters in that tier. History has shown us that you need multiple minor league pitchers with ace upside, because some will end up as relievers (May), others won't make it at all (Meyer), and many will crest as mid-rotation starters.

 

Having all three of these guys doesn't guarantee an ace by any stretch of the imagination, but it definitely improves our odds.

[bird]

Random thoughts:

 

1. If prospect talent were evenly distributed, we'd have three prospects on this list. I keep coming back to my insistent belief that having a prospect pipeline that is well above average is essential to any chance of sustained excellence. And yes, of course it has to be put to good use.

 

2. I'm far less concerned with whether any specific pitcher becomes productive in relief versus in the rotation, as long as the high-quality prospect numbers ( I arbitrarily think of FG's 40 FV as a good measure of quality ) are there. Right now, I think I just counted 17 Twins pitching prospects in FG with a 40 FV or better.

 

3. The important part of this last point? If a guy nudges his way into an already-solid bullpen, we have an opportunity to move the guy being replaced. Example: the ill-fated Sam Dyson trade cost us TWO 40 FV pitching prospects, Kai-Wei Teng and Prelander Berroa, plus 40+ FV OF Jaylin Davis. Consider this: Teng and Berroa, whose ETA is 2020, are in the same category as Stashak, Enlow, Sands, Colina, Alcala, Smeltzer, Rijo, Winder, Cano, and Moran. And Davis slots in with Urbina, Javier, Miranda, and Wallner. The point is, whether you move a roster guy or a prospect in this kind of situation, you're dealing with some serious trade value. It can be argued, as I often do, that moving the roster guy creates greater value for you.

 

4. The everyday roster for the Twins is regarded as among the very best in all of baseball. We have three prospects in Lewis, Larnach, and Kirilloff who will have to demonstrate that they represent an upgrade over someone on a talent-rich roster in the next year or so. If guys like Rosario, Buxton, and Kepler refuse to be pushed aside because they remain the better alternative, what a great problem to have.

[jkcarew]

 

Exactly, rated the same but ranked differently. Not sure why it seems that so many on this board would be unwilling to move Graterol or Balazovic (unless perhaps for a true ace), but I regularly see Duran get thrown into hypothetical trade propositions seemingly as an afterthought. Do people confuse him with Alcala?

Can't speak for others, but I'm not crazy about moving any of the top arms, including Duran. We need arms, and we'll need them soon (pending new trades/signings, we'll be short again in 2021). To the extent the Twins are motivated to make a big move, they should still be making that move from an area of organizational depth, not weakness. Of course, a team like the Mets might demand a young arm be included in a deal for Thor (as an example), but that certainly wouldn't be my going-in position if I were the Twins. First-basemen, corner outfielders...even short-stops, we got. Pitching...not so much.

[LylesCrocodiles]

I’d love to keep all the prospects and they all help at the ML level. But that’s not how it works. We all get that. But a lot of comments this offseason have revolved around finding an ace. Or a 1A/B pairing with Berríos. And then we see there are 3 prospects in the pipeline that are top 100 guys. One of them did well in relief in his ML debut. Duran and Balazovic advanced to the upper levels. And when this team opens spring training in a month they will have 2 SP/opener spots open at the big league level. And for some reason Graterol is (for now) going to the bullpen. If he earns his chance he should get the opportunity to start IMO. I think the upside of giving Graterol a chance to start far outweighs the impact he can provide in 1-2 inning stints. Especially if this team is as good as everyone is expecting. I think this team would do fine with Graterol as the No 5 guy. Duran and Balazovic could be options in the second half. Let’s find out what we’ve got while we have a top 5 offense.

[h2oface]

 

.....Winning these lists is nice but doesn't mean much as Garver and Arraez say Hello.  They were never on these lists and Garver was one of the best catchers in MLB last year and Arreaz was in rookie of the year conversations.  They couldn't have bought there [sic] way onto one of these top 10 lists in MILB?  The talent experts only can predict so much.  I think he is dead wrong not to have Larnach on there though.

 

Absolutely. Mostly, year by year, it shows how those that get paid to guess right, are mostly wrong. 

 

 

[Tomj14]

 

Neither Gonsalves or Gordon were ever really thought of in the same way as Kirilloff and Lewis. Those last two could easily go either way: they could shoot up the board or they could languish. Shooting up the board was never thought to be something we'd see from Gordon, whose ceiling was "decent every day 2B, or Gonsalves, whose ceiling was back end starter.

That might be a bit of hindsight, Gonsalves and Gordon were never in the Kirlloff and Lewis territory, but they were both top 100 prospects for multiple years. I don't think the expectation for them was to have Gordon in the minors 7 years after drafting him or Stephen Gonsalves would be put on waivers after 24 MLB innings.

 

But lets be real both Gordon and Lewis were/are ranked where they are based on their draft position. If either would have been a 3rd rounder or later they would never be ranked as high as they are or were.

[Mr. Brooks]

That might be a bit of hindsight, Gonsalves and Gordon were never in the Kirlloff and Lewis territory, but they were both top 100 prospects for multiple years. I don't think the expectation for them was to have Gordon in the minors 7 years after drafting him or Stephen Gonsalves would be put on waivers after 24 MLB innings.

 

But lets be real both Gordon and Lewis were/are ranked where they are based on their draft position. If either would have been a 3rd rounder or later they would never be ranked as high as they are or were.

They were ranked where they were for the same reason they were drafted high, talent. They weren't ranked where they were because of where they were drafted.

Two sides of the same coin, perhaps, but still not the same thing.

[bird]

 

That might be a bit of hindsight, Gonsalves and Gordon were never in the Kirlloff and Lewis territory, but they were both top 100 prospects for multiple years. I don't think the expectation for them was to have Gordon in the minors 7 years after drafting him or Stephen Gonsalves would be put on waivers after 24 MLB innings.

 

But lets be real both Gordon and Lewis were/are ranked where they are based on their draft position. If either would have been a 3rd rounder or later they would never be ranked as high as they are or were.

The scouting evaluations determine a prospect's initial ranking, and then progress at skill development, and to a lesser extent statistical performance and health, factor in. And of course, where they are drafted is a function of those evaluations.

 

Gonsalves was a 4th rounder, thought to be a possible steal, but never regarded as a front rotation talent, and early scouting reports detailed his skill deficiencies. He didn't make anyone's Top 100 until he made some progress. Gordon, while lauded for his physical talent, "makeup" and his pedigree, was thought to have, from the outset, a ceiling of "above average" IF with questions about his defense and hit skills.

 

In actuality, both Gordon and Gonsalves fell off the Top 100 lists pretty quickly, and it's now been awhile since anyone was excited about either of them whatsoever, outside of this board perhaps. Injuries have played a part in that, but I'm guessing their fall from grace is mostly about skills not matching talent.

 

Gordon could still have a light go on and become a player. But Lewis is in a different category altogether. And Kirilloff was part of a decent draft class, and his hit tool has never been in question. He gets the standard corner OF discount in prospect rankings and is a much more promising prospect than Gonsalves and Gordon ever were. His injuries have suppressed his prospect standing too.

[Dantes929]

 

Trading Lewis/Kirilloff for Thor sounds pretty good right now eh? That’s why I am always up for trading prospects... Lewis needs a big year at the plate to get back to top 10. If Kirilloff is indeed an elite prospect, he needs to be on the MLB team this year. He’s not getting any younger...

I am always open to trading prospects which is a little different.   Not saying you are wrong but there is a flip side.    Sano, Polanco, Kepler, Buxton, Garver, Berrios, Rogers, Duffey, May were all prospects whose names were included in trade scenarios in the past.   I am guessing in many instances for players you wouldn't be thrilled with now.   There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of trades of prospects for all stars where the all stars continued to be all stars and where the prospects went no where but there is also plenty of the same kind of evidence where the all star flopped and the prospects went on to be great.   The irrefutable fact that many prospects don't pan out so should be traded is the equivalent of the equally irrefutable fact that all stars were at one point prospects and should never be traded.   We could have traded for Thor and he might have needed TJ surgery after one pitch and Kiriloff and Lewis could have (and still may be) long term all stars.    Again, not saying your position is wrong, just that not trading our top prospects for Thor isn't persuasive that we should trade our top prospects more often.

[Tomj14]

 

The scouting evaluations determine a prospect's initial ranking, and then progress at skill development, and to a lesser extent statistical performance and health, factor in. And of course, where they are drafted is a function of those evaluations.

 

Gonsalves was a 4th rounder, thought to be a possible steal, but never regarded as a front rotation talent, and early scouting reports detailed his skill deficiencies. He didn't make anyone's Top 100 until he made some progress. Gordon, while lauded for his physical talent, "makeup" and his pedigree, was thought to have, from the outset, a ceiling of "above average" IF with questions about his defense and hit skills.

 

In actuality, both Gordon and Gonsalves fell off the Top 100 lists pretty quickly, and it's now been awhile since anyone was excited about either of them whatsoever, outside of this board perhaps. Injuries have played a part in that, but I'm guessing their fall from grace is mostly about skills not matching talent.

 

Gordon could still have a light go on and become a player. But Lewis is in a different category altogether. And Kirilloff was part of a decent draft class, and his hit tool has never been in question. He gets the standard corner OF discount in prospect rankings and is a much more promising prospect than Gonsalves and Gordon ever were. His injuries have suppressed his prospect standing too.

So are you confirming what I wrote or arguing against it?

A 4th round pick that might be a steal has to work his way up the rankings and a high first round pick starts pretty high and can move up with a good season and can skyrocket with a great season, but can fall after quickly after a couple of not so great seasons.

Seems like that has been the case for everybody mentioned, If Lewis or Kirilloff have a another season like last year, they will fall rankings and possibly out of the top 100, just like Gordon, if one has a great season they will move up closer to the top 10 again.

 

[bird]

 

So are you confirming what I wrote or arguing against it?

A 4th round pick that might be a steal has to work his way up the rankings and a high first round pick starts pretty high and can move up with a good season and can skyrocket with a great season, but can fall after quickly after a couple of not so great seasons.

Seems like that has been the case for everybody mentioned, If Lewis or Kirilloff have a another season like last year, they will fall rankings and possibly out of the top 100, just like Gordon, if one has a great season they will move up closer to the top 10 again.

 

 

Neither Gordon or Gonsalves were consensus Top 100 guys for "multiple seasons" as you say. A couple, yeah.

 

What I'm suggesting is that evaluators are much higher on both the ceiling and the probability that Lewis and Kirilloff make it than they were and are with the other two. Kirilloff fell out of the rankings due to an injury-related downturn in production, but he's right back up there now. Despite concerns about Lewis's hitch and leg kick, FanGraphs gives him a 60 FV. So, the pro evaluators, I think, have much greater confidence that those guys will refine their skills. They never had that sentiment about Gordon or Gonsalves, so there's not much of a basis for drawing analogies there. Apples and oranges.

[jkcarew]

 

Neither Gordon or Gonsalves were consensus Top 100 guys for "multiple seasons" as you say.  A couple, yeah.

 

What I'm suggesting is that evaluators are much higher on both the ceiling and the probability that Lewis and Kirilloff make it than they were and are with the other two. Kirilloff fell out of the rankings due to an injury-related downturn in production, but he's right back up there now. Despite concerns about Lewis's hitch and leg kick, FanGraphs gives him a 60 FV. So, the pro evaluators, I think, have much greater confidence that those guys will refine their skills. They never had that sentiment about Gordon or Gonsalves, so there's not much of a basis for drawing analogies there. Apples and oranges.

I think it's "athleticism" (non-pitchers) and how that might project in terms of defensive premiums and extra-base potential...not necessarily the 'talent' or 'baseball skill' that the player actually demonstrates at the point of evaluation. You hinted as much with comment on Kirilloff's 'discount' for corner position. Nobody thought Nick Gordon had a better hit tool than Alex Kirilloff, yet Gordon was drafted 5th overall to Kirilloff's 15th. Nobody was raving about Royce Lewis's hit tool when he was drafted #1 overall. IMO, it could be easily argued that many scouts and people who publish projections are influenced too much by athleticism given how dominant the 'hit' tool is in generating actual value. Nevertheless, for this reason, it will take longer for Lewis to sink on these lists than it would for Gordon (elite athlete vs very good)...and Kirilloff, IMO, would sink like a stone...just as fast or faster than Gordon...the second it looks like he won't hit. (All hypothetical...hopefully )

 

My two cents. Interesting discussion.

[Tomj14]

 

Neither Gordon or Gonsalves were consensus Top 100 guys for "multiple seasons" as you say.  A couple, yeah.

 

What I'm suggesting is that evaluators are much higher on both the ceiling and the probability that Lewis and Kirilloff make it than they were and are with the other two. Kirilloff fell out of the rankings due to an injury-related downturn in production, but he's right back up there now. Despite concerns about Lewis's hitch and leg kick, FanGraphs gives him a 60 FV. So, the pro evaluators, I think, have much greater confidence that those guys will refine their skills. They never had that sentiment about Gordon or Gonsalves, so there's not much of a basis for drawing analogies there. Apples and oranges.

First - Multiple is defined as being or having more than one.

 

Second - I said the same thing as you -  Gonsalves and Gordon were never in the Kirlloff and Lewis territory

 

I said but they were both top 100 prospects for multiple years, which is true, so I am not sure what you are trying to convince me of. In 2017 on MLB top prospects Lewis was 27 and Gordon 30, so if you are trying to convince me at one point in time they were being thought of in almost the exact same light, then I am wrong I didn't realize Gordon was so high.

But to end this conversation, I will agree you are correct and I am not.

 

Edit - http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2017

[bird]

 

I think it's "athleticism" (non-pitchers) and how that might project in terms of defensive premiums and extra-base potential...not necessarily the 'talent' or 'baseball skill' that the player actually demonstrates at the point of evaluation. You hinted as much with comment on Kirilloff's 'discount' for corner position. Nobody thought Nick Gordon had a better hit tool than Alex Kirilloff, yet Gordon was drafted 5th overall to Kirilloff's 15th. Nobody was raving about Royce Lewis's hit tool when he was drafted #1 overall. IMO, it could be easily argued that many scouts and people who publish projections are influenced too much by athleticism given how dominant the 'hit' tool is in generating actual value. Nevertheless, for this reason, it will take longer for Lewis to sink on these lists than it would for Gordon (elite athlete vs very good)...and Kirilloff, IMO, would sink like a stone...just as fast or faster than Gordon...the second it looks like he won't hit. (All hypothetical...hopefully )

 

My two cents. Interesting discussion.

 

 

Well said, and I should substitute athleticism for talent. I think saying athleticism is possibly overrated compared to developed skills has some merit.  The hit tool gets a premium, and I think I agree with that. What makes it so interesting is that for every case we can cite about athleticism allowing a player to develop skills, even hit skills (Aaron Hicks), we can find an example where monstrous physical talent wasn't enough. The pros can't predict Garver's will to succeed or Delmon Young's and Oswaldo Arcia's demons either. In Lewis's case, they talk about off the charts makeup to go along with the absurd athleticism. Is it enough?

 

Because of the variance in the quality of each draft class, I think that 10-slot gap between Gordon and Kirilloff is fairly benign myself.

[Tomj14]

 

..just as fast or faster than Gordon...

This is what I was trying to point out above and did a terrible job, people seem to forget about how highly Gordon was thought of.

He was in the top 90 prospects in all of baseball for 4 years. He didn't drop fast. He moved up and down the lists. It wasn't until 2018 when he got to AAA and wasn't good that he dropped (I understand he was being passed on the Twins prospect list but nationally he was still highly regarded)

Go to Baseball reference and check his prospect ranking.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=gordon000nic

 

[jkcarew]

 

This is what I was trying to point out above and did a terrible job, people seem to forget about how highly Gordon was thought of.

He was in the top 90 prospects in all of baseball for 4 years. He didn't drop fast. He moved up and down the lists. It wasn't until 2018 when he got to AAA and wasn't good that he dropped (I understand he was being passed on the Twins prospect list but nationally he was still highly regarded)

Go to Baseball reference and check his prospect ranking.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=gordon000nic

The good news with Gordon is that he actually had a bit of a bounce-back year last year...much, much improvement in his second look at AAA at age 23. Although, OPS of 801 still slightly below Rochester's inflated team average. But, played a lot of SS still. Far from done...but it's pretty easy to see why most think the ceiling has been lowered significantly. The good news is that it doesn't seem the floor has lowered much...which could turn out to be useful for the Twins (or wherever he ends up in next couple of years).

[h2oface]

 

First - Multiple is defined as being or having more than one.

 

Yup. Just what my mind said when I read that.

[Vanimal46]

 

I get the point on the trade, and agree. But, I have no problem with Kirilloff spending another year in the minors. He wasn't very healthy last year, and unless some guys get injured or fall off a performance cliff in 2020, he won't be needed this season. Let him get back to raking in the minors, which he didn't do last year. Late season call-up and 2021 arrival is fine with me...but yes, if the Twins don't see that scenario, they probably should be trading him real soon.

 

I understand he's had the injury bug during his career... Then again, I see actual elite prospects and how many at-bats they had before getting called up:

 

Acuna - 1,002

Guerrero Jr. - 1,075

Tatis Jr. - 1,064

Jimenez - 1,585

Robles - 1,438 

Bichette - 1,302 

 

Compared to Kirilloff who has 1,103 at-bats already. If he's indeed elite, then this should be the year he makes his way to the Twins. 

[Dman]

 

The good news with Gordon is that he actually had a bit of a bounce-back year last year...much, much improvement in his second look at AAA at age 23. Although, OPS of 801 still slightly below Rochester's inflated team average. But, played a lot of SS still. Far from done...but it's pretty easy to see why most think the ceiling has been lowered significantly. The good news is that it doesn't seem the floor has lowered much...which could turn out to be useful for the Twins (or wherever he ends up in next couple of years).

 

Gordon always had a slight build and it was always a bit of concern if he would grow into a larger frame.  The Twins obviously thought he would and his hit tool, athleticism and makeup were all good as well as bloodlines.  So far the projection just hasn't worked out that well IMO.  I am still hoping he can fill out a bit more and find some power.  I still believe in his hit tool although Fangraphs seems skeptical and they would know more than I do.  I still think he can fill out more and regain that prospect status if not he looks like a solid utility guy but that is a tough outcome considering he was taken so high.  I agree with you that he still could be a valuable piece for this team as a bench player or hopefully starter at some point.  I just think it is going to take a bit longer for him to get there.

[The Wise One]

The accuracy of these lists show that the actual number of where they are ranked means very little

[specialiststeve]

 

Am I the only one who finds Duran to be an odd inclusion? I like the upside but I haven't really looked at him as a top 100 player, maybe I'm off here

 

Has thrown in the triple digits.... Made it to AA last year... totals include 115 innings 136 SO...  3.76 era for the year.... just turned 22 years old. Has some great upside... like most of the youngsters needs to work on his offs peed stuff and location. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Absolutely. Mostly, year by year, it shows how those that get paid to guess right, are mostly wrong. 

 

Have you seen the studies on rankings and WAR for top 100 players? Because they are mostly right, assuming you don't expect perfection in predicting the future..

[Mike Sixel]

 

The accuracy of these lists show that the actual number of where they are ranked means very little

 

Not true at all. Have you looked at the studies in top 100 rankings and eventual WAR? Do you really think teams don't have similar rankings, that they consider, when making trades? 

[Seth Stohs]

 

Graterol that low on their hot 100 list already having major league time in to me signifies that they do not believe he has that high of ceiling anymore.

 

I don't know if that is necessarily true... but i think the things we talk about... lack of innings. Health concerns. Bullpen potential. Those are the reasons probably. But 5 down is basically staying even... 

[old nurse]

 

I don't know if that is necessarily true... but i think the things we talk about... lack of innings. Health concerns. Bullpen potential. Those are the reasons probably. But 5 down is basically staying even... 

A pitcher that was good enough to rise through levels of minor league ball after about 12 games a level and makes a major league debut yet does not rise in the rankings would seem rather incongruous  with top of the rotation potential.