MLB Prospect Rankings Updated - 3 Twins in the Top 100

[bean5302]

MLB has just updated it's prospect rankings and three Twins have made the top 100.

#33 Brooks Lee https://www.mlb.com/prospects/top100/brooks-lee-686797
#61 Royce Lewis https://www.mlb.com/prospects/top100/royce-lewis-668904
#97 Emmanuel Rodriguez https://www.mlb.com/prospects/top100/emmanuel-rodriguez-691181

Overall, the Twins' farm system is ranked #22 in MLB. Explanations and the biggest movers. https://www.mlb.com/news/top-30-prospect-lists-midseason-rankings-updates-2022?t=mlb-pipeline-coverage

The Guardians are ranked #7 with 5 top 100 players, and the rest of the AL Central teams Twins, Tigers, Royals, and White Sox are literally #22-25, respectively. If MLB is at all correct, Cleveland looks a lot more dangerous than I was expecting, especially considering they're 

Complete Twins top 30 list
https://www.mlb.com/prospects/twins/

[FlyingFinn]

Royce Lewis too low. Strotman too high, shouldn't be on the list. Mooney seems high as I think Headrick has done better and should be in the top 30. 

Guys on the 40 man (and not the Twins) but dropping - Balazovic, Henriquez, Enlow, Strotman. Can't see Henriquez and Strotman making it through the winter on the 40 man roster. 

A bunch of guys on here who need to be added to the 40 man or potentially be lost -  Wallner, SWR, Urbina (wow, he is a long way from making the majors but is playing well...kind of like Baddoo), Canterino, Varland, Julien, Palacios, Mooney, Legumina, Cruz, Helman. My prediction is everyone on the list through Palacios will be added to the 40 man (except Urbina) but not the last 4 guys.

 None of the traded guys (Steer, ECS, Haijar, Povich) made the top 100. Steer is the #7 prospect for the Reds.

[DJL44]

I think SWR is a very promising prospect. He's 8 months older than Prielipp and pitching in AAA.

[AZTwin]

21 hours ago, DJL44 said:

I think SWR is a very promising prospect. He's 8 months older than Prielipp and pitching in AAA.

3 1/2 months older

[DJL44]

4 hours ago, AZTwin said:

3 1/2 months older

Thanks

[Doctor Gast]

I'm not too concerned about the rankings because most of our non 100 prospect turn out to be very good MLB players (Arraez & Miranda). Our top 3 prospects are very good gloves and fill our premium postions at SS & CF. My biggest concern is fielding a catcher any time soon.

[Trov]

I am never concerned about rankings for prospects because for most part all they are is projections and they mean nothing.  Many do not end up panning out.  Some come out of no where, but many never do what projected.  Cleveland is known to producing pitching, but their position players have struggled to make impact at MLB level. All having top farm system in projection means is people think they have good players coming, but many factors impact how they transition.  Remember when Sano was a top ranked guy?  How did that work out for him? 

[bean5302]

The projections are made by people who are paid to evaluate players and the projections are generally treated as dollar value by MLB front offices. These lists are a general estimate, by professionals, of how much good talent a farm system has relative to other teams in the league.

There are always guys who are going to rocket up the prospect charts (Winder) or tank down (Cavaco). Teams will get lucky with guys who didn't honestly look like more than role players (Arraez) and unluck with guys who were supposed to be game changers (Fernando Romero). Using single outliers as examples of how the systems generally work isn't realistic.

What this farm system ranking is really saying is the Twins probably don't have much to count on from their farm in the next couple of years. Minnesota will need to win with the roster they have and big money free agency dollars. Is that concerning to a fan who wants to see sustainable performance? To me it is. Do I care about that if the Twins win the World Series this year? Nope.

[goulik]

17 hours ago, Trov said:

I am never concerned about rankings for prospects because for most part all they are is projections and they mean nothing.  Many do not end up panning out.  Some come out of no where, but many never do what projected.  Cleveland is known to producing pitching, but their position players have struggled to make impact at MLB level. All having top farm system in projection means is people think they have good players coming, but many factors impact how they transition.  Remember when Sano was a top ranked guy?  How did that work out for him? 

Actually Sano came out of the gate looking pretty good and put up a few pretty good years but then he fizzled instead of continuing to grow at the MLB level and he had all those weird injuries…SMH… 

In short, the projections I believe were dead on. He was a monster prospect and had so much potential in his first couple years. That has all just amplified his current state of mediocrity and causes us to see mediocre as REALLY Bad.

[goulik]

It’s interesting that they get their expected arrival dates and refuse to bend on them as the year progresses. Do they really think Strotman, Balazovic, Palacios, SWR, and Martin are all debuting with the Twins this year? 
on the other hand they updated Lewis to next year even though he already made a debut… anyone have further insight into these arrival dates and why they may seem funky?

[bean5302]

5 hours ago, goulik said:

It’s interesting that they get their expected arrival dates and refuse to bend on them as the year progresses. Do they really think Strotman, Balazovic, Palacios, SWR, and Martin are all debuting with the Twins this year? 
on the other hand they updated Lewis to next year even though he already made a debut… anyone have further insight into these arrival dates and why they may seem funky?

Any of them could be considered developed enough to call their number this year. It's when the players are estimated to be ready enough for MLB action. Palacios was already called up earlier this year.
 

[nicksaviking]

I'm not sure how a catcher with a .934 OPS and a 24/39 K/BB ratio doesn't make the top 30.

Also agree that Headrick's absence is odd considering the last three pitchers on the list.

[Trov]

20 hours ago, bean5302 said:

The projections are made by people who are paid to evaluate players and the projections are generally treated as dollar value by MLB front offices. These lists are a general estimate, by professionals, of how much good talent a farm system has relative to other teams in the league.

There are always guys who are going to rocket up the prospect charts (Winder) or tank down (Cavaco). Teams will get lucky with guys who didn't honestly look like more than role players (Arraez) and unluck with guys who were supposed to be game changers (Fernando Romero). Using single outliers as examples of how the systems generally work isn't realistic.

What this farm system ranking is really saying is the Twins probably don't have much to count on from their farm in the next couple of years. Minnesota will need to win with the roster they have and big money free agency dollars. Is that concerning to a fan who wants to see sustainable performance? To me it is. Do I care about that if the Twins win the World Series this year? Nope.

I do agree that the projections are made by people with a whole lot more knowledge than me.  I also agree that many front offices will rely on them, to some point, they also do their own scouting.  Many things go into them, position played, age, body type, ect.  I agree that we are lower in part from the guys that we traded or have graduated from the list.  We still have plenty of young talent under team control, barring injuries that should help for the next few years.  

Also you need to always keep in mind that the rankings are based off of their peers, and they are being compared to each other.  Sometimes you may be the 150th ranked prospect by these people, but you are still expected to be very good, just others are projected to be better, or on other hand you are very high on list because others are not good, and the list shifts greatly after one year.

Personally, when you get outside the top few players, it is hard to really say anyone is greatly expected to do much.  Take Palacios, he is 18th on the list for the Twins.  Years ago he was higher, then he was off of it, until this year.  He may or may not ever have much of MLB career.  I will agree most at the top of the lists normally contribute to the MLB teams, but that does not mean high levels of success. 

My main point is that rankings in list does not mean succuss at the MLB level.  It just gives some level of idea of how others view the players in the organization at any point in time.  I bet 3 years ago people were not too big on Miranda, but where on Wander Javier.  Miranda was 14th on our list, Javier was 4th.  Arraez was 17th.  We had several ahead of them that are now below or not even on top 30 lists.  

I would not say they are "outliers" when they show up all the time. You can go through lists each year and find guys high up that fall down the list and ones down the list that fly up it.  The lists are based on what we know at the time.  Yes, if teams are not high on prospects it makes it harder to make trades, which is in part why you trade for controlled players. 

So I am not worried because the ranking does not mean anything as to where the team will be next year, or in five years. 

[Trov]

18 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm not sure how a catcher with a .934 OPS and a 24/39 K/BB ratio doesn't make the top 30.

Also agree that Headrick's absence is odd considering the last three pitchers on the list.

The list is not built on what a player is doing at any given level.  It is built on what "experts" think the player will be down the road.  You are talking about Isola, who has only played 18 games at catcher this year.  My guess is he is not expected to be much of a defensive catcher in the future or even staying there.  He is 24, so already older for any prospects list, not too old but he was a 29th round pick for a reason, he was never projected to be much.  May he surprise us all, sure, but it is unlikely he will, that is why he is not on the list, because the experts think he will not pan out as much at the MLB level as others on the list. 

[Trov]

7 hours ago, goulik said:

Actually Sano came out of the gate looking pretty good and put up a few pretty good years but then he fizzled instead of continuing to grow at the MLB level and he had all those weird injuries…SMH… 

In short, the projections I believe were dead on. He was a monster prospect and had so much potential in his first couple years. That has all just amplified his current state of mediocrity and causes us to see mediocre as REALLY Bad.

This is just my point, that he was rated very high, and was expected to be a huge contributor at the MLB level, but for various reasons, injuries, weight, lack of adjusting, so on, he did not.  So despite being high on prospect lists, he never panned out.  I am not saying the list was wrong for projecting him to be good, what I am saying is ultimately he did not pan out the way people thought.  

[bean5302]

Sano was a huge contributor at the MLB level. Anybody who turns into a starting position player for more than 5 years is a huge contributor in terms of prospect value.

I chose 2013 because it was before Sano was called up and he was highly rated at the time. The 2013 top prospects. https://www.mlb.com/news/2013-top-100-mlb-prospects-list-c301609842
I had to scroll down to #18 before I ran into a prospect who hasn't had a significant career in baseball (except Oscar Taveras RIP). #18 Danny Hultzen, #22 Mike Olt, #26 Bubba Starling and #27 Jon Singleton. That's it for guys who haven't made a significant impact at the MLB level of the top 30. The list is a who's who of household name stars in MLB.

Maybe 2013 was just "special?" So lets try 2014. Nope. Had to get down to #17 Mark Appel before I found a dud. It wasn't quite as impressive as 2013, but not far off.

[Trov]

On 8/23/2022 at 3:01 PM, bean5302 said:

Sano was a huge contributor at the MLB level. Anybody who turns into a starting position player for more than 5 years is a huge contributor in terms of prospect value.

I chose 2013 because it was before Sano was called up and he was highly rated at the time. The 2013 top prospects. https://www.mlb.com/news/2013-top-100-mlb-prospects-list-c301609842
I had to scroll down to #18 before I ran into a prospect who hasn't had a significant career in baseball (except Oscar Taveras RIP). #18 Danny Hultzen, #22 Mike Olt, #26 Bubba Starling and #27 Jon Singleton. That's it for guys who haven't made a significant impact at the MLB level of the top 30. The list is a who's who of household name stars in MLB.

Maybe 2013 was just "special?" So lets try 2014. Nope. Had to get down to #17 Mark Appel before I found a dud. It wasn't quite as impressive as 2013, but not far off.

Well I guess where we may differ is what is a "significant impact"  You find 8 years playing to 7.7 WAR or 10 years to a 6.0 WAR(Travis d'Arnaud) was 6th on your list, is a significant impact.  Personally, I do not find that to be a significant impact, to be considered a top prospect.  I would argue that a top prospect should be expected to be at least good for an average of a 2 WAR per season over their career.  If they average 1 or less per season they are basically a replacement level player and are average.  Number 1 on the 2013 list was Jurickson Profar, a career 6.6 WAR, of which 3.4 is this year, 9 seasons in MLB.  Until this year, a huge outlier year, he has averaged below league average numbers.  If you want to say below league average is good for best prospect in baseball, then you have a low bar in my opinion. 

Nothing wrong with average for a MLB player, but when you are considered a top guy, I would expect more.  Also, we are talking about rankings, so when you compare, that for example number 53 in 2013 was Max Fried, who I would argue is better than most of the pitchers on the list ahead of him, save for Garrit Cole.  most likely on par with Wheeler.  However, Bundy was the number 2 overall prospect on that list.  I bet Balitmore would have loved to have traded Bundy for Fried, or Cole, or Wheeler, or Tallion, or a few other guys that were rank below him.  

Yes, Bundy has contributed to MLB teams, 7.8 WAR over 8 years, and if your argument is being in the top prospects regardless of placement means it is a good list if you can play at the MLB level of replacement means the rankings are accurate, then I concede to your argument.  However, my argument is that the rankings are meaningless in turns of actual output, because someone like Bundy was the number 2 ranked prospect in baseball, best pitching prospect, but there are several pitchers on the same list that have done better than him. 

Therefore, I am saying the ranking was wrong in hindsight, because several pitchers on the list have had better MLB careers.  I will concede that most of the prospects on the list, make it to MLB and contribute, and in that the list is good, but to say one team has a better list of prospects and that means they will have more success in the future means nothing.  A player or team ranked in top 10 does not mean it will equate to future success or more than a team that is ranked 15, all it means is they have players that many consider will contribute to MLB team. 

 

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, Trov said:

Well I guess where we may differ is what is a "significant impact"  You find 8 years playing to 7.7 WAR or 10 years to a 6.0 WAR(Travis d'Arnaud) was 6th on your list, is a significant impact.  Personally, I do not find that to be a significant impact, to be considered a top prospect.  I would argue that a top prospect should be expected to be at least good for an average of a 2 WAR per season over their career.  If they average 1 or less per season they are basically a replacement level player and are average.  Number 1 on the 2013 list was Jurickson Profar, a career 6.6 WAR, of which 3.4 is this year, 9 seasons in MLB.  Until this year, a huge outlier year, he has averaged below league average numbers.  If you want to say below league average is good for best prospect in baseball, then you have a low bar in my opinion. 

Nothing wrong with average for a MLB player, but when you are considered a top guy, I would expect more.  Also, we are talking about rankings, so when you compare, that for example number 53 in 2013 was Max Fried, who I would argue is better than most of the pitchers on the list ahead of him, save for Garrit Cole.  most likely on par with Wheeler.  However, Bundy was the number 2 overall prospect on that list.  I bet Balitmore would have loved to have traded Bundy for Fried, or Cole, or Wheeler, or Tallion, or a few other guys that were rank below him.  

Yes, Bundy has contributed to MLB teams, 7.8 WAR over 8 years, and if your argument is being in the top prospects regardless of placement means it is a good list if you can play at the MLB level of replacement means the rankings are accurate, then I concede to your argument.  However, my argument is that the rankings are meaningless in turns of actual output, because someone like Bundy was the number 2 ranked prospect in baseball, best pitching prospect, but there are several pitchers on the same list that have done better than him. 

Therefore, I am saying the ranking was wrong in hindsight, because several pitchers on the list have had better MLB careers.  I will concede that most of the prospects on the list, make it to MLB and contribute, and in that the list is good, but to say one team has a better list of prospects and that means they will have more success in the future means nothing.  A player or team ranked in top 10 does not mean it will equate to future success or more than a team that is ranked 15, all it means is they have players that many consider will contribute to MLB team. 

 

There are 1,693 players who've had at least 10 plate appearances in MLB since 2015. Of those players, Miguel Sano's 8.6 fWAR ranks #175 in MLB. He's in the top 10.3% of ALL MLB position players production over that time span.

But wait, there are pitchers, too! There are 1,568 pitchers with 10+ innings since Bundy came onto the scene at the start of 2016. Bundy has 10.5 fWAR in his career, which ranks #82 among ALL pitchers with 10+ innings. Bundy is in the top 5.2% of all pitchers during his time in the league. Did you know Bundy got Cy Young votes in 2020? He was one of 11 pitchers in the AL receiving votes beating out Liam Hendricks and Framber Valdez.

So yeah, you expecting more than not only making the big show from prospects, but also more than being the top 5-10% of all players in MLB level production since they entered the league to be absurd.

Sano and Bundy have had excellent MLB careers. Excellent by anybody's standard. Have they reached their ceiling or maybe their absolute potential people dreamed about? No. But if your expectation is a player will produce at the level people believe to be their absolute dream scenario ceiling, you should also expect to be pretty miserable when virtually nobody ever produces at the level you expect they should.

I'm not a fan of Sano's. I don't think he's worth a roster spot anymore and he needs to make major changes if he's going to stay in the big show or return to a productive form. I like Bundy "okay" as a 5th starter. I think he's a dicey signing in the future and I think his conditioning needs some work and him recovering some velocity should be totally doable with a little work. I recognize Sano and Bundy aren't even 30 yet, but both look to be in the twilight of their careers and neither of them lived up to their dream potential of scouts and fans, but I will not discount the enormous level of success they've had relative to their average peers at the MLB level let alone how amazingly successful they've been compared to general prospects.

[Trov]

17 hours ago, bean5302 said:

There are 1,693 players who've had at least 10 plate appearances in MLB since 2015. Of those players, Miguel Sano's 8.6 fWAR ranks #175 in MLB. He's in the top 10.3% of ALL MLB position players production over that time span.

But wait, there are pitchers, too! There are 1,568 pitchers with 10+ innings since Bundy came onto the scene at the start of 2016. Bundy has 10.5 fWAR in his career, which ranks #82 among ALL pitchers with 10+ innings. Bundy is in the top 5.2% of all pitchers during his time in the league. Did you know Bundy got Cy Young votes in 2020? He was one of 11 pitchers in the AL receiving votes beating out Liam Hendricks and Framber Valdez.

So yeah, you expecting more than not only making the big show from prospects, but also more than being the top 5-10% of all players in MLB level production since they entered the league to be absurd.

Sano and Bundy have had excellent MLB careers. Excellent by anybody's standard. Have they reached their ceiling or maybe their absolute potential people dreamed about? No. But if your expectation is a player will produce at the level people believe to be their absolute dream scenario ceiling, you should also expect to be pretty miserable when virtually nobody ever produces at the level you expect they should.

I'm not a fan of Sano's. I don't think he's worth a roster spot anymore and he needs to make major changes if he's going to stay in the big show or return to a productive form. I like Bundy "okay" as a 5th starter. I think he's a dicey signing in the future and I think his conditioning needs some work and him recovering some velocity should be totally doable with a little work. I recognize Sano and Bundy aren't even 30 yet, but both look to be in the twilight of their careers and neither of them lived up to their dream potential of scouts and fans, but I will not discount the enormous level of success they've had relative to their average peers at the MLB level let alone how amazingly successful they've been compared to general prospects.

Again, our difference is you are using being in the rankings is a good thing, which I agree, but my point is the rankings do not equal to what outcomes they will have, and the rankings will change as more data comes in.  So to have a single snapshot of a ranking and say our future is bright, or dim is a poor way to look at the rankings.  For example, in 2010 ranking a lot of the top 50 guys have had decent careers and teams would be happy with what they got.  Several though did not perform all that well over their careers.  One guy absent of the top 50 players, only could find top 50, is the best player in baseball since then.  It was his first full minor league season and he was a late first round pick, but after the experts got more time to see him, in 2011 he was the number 1 rated prospect.  If in 2010, we were offered Arron Hicks, who ranked 29 that year in top prospects, for Mike Trout, I bet many fans would have looked at the rankings and say why did we traded the 29th ranked guy or someone not even in the top 50.  

So what I am pointing out is that the rankings at any given time does not mean much, as we have seen Martin, who was 36th ranked last year, and in half a season drop to out of top 100.  Guys will move up and down as more info comes in.  The exact same farm system for Twins next midseason may get ranked in top 10 because they perform beyond what todays projections have them.  

Mike Trout, who turned out to be the best player in the minors in 2010 was not even top 50 ranked prospect, why?  Because the experts had not seen enough of him, but when they did, he then was number 1, which changed how people saw the Angels minor league rankings.  Did they change personal?  No, people just learned what the Angels had.  I am not saying Trout was some outlier, because he was just more unknown in 2010.  

Now, if a team continues to stay low in the rankings year after year, that will be an issue to worry about, but for all we know next year we have a few break out guys, or rebound guys, and then we jump back up the list, despite having mostly the same players.