2010 Baseball Prospectus organizational rankings (Reds are 9th)

[OnBaseMachine]

Yesterday, Baseball Prospectus released part one of their 2010 organizational rankings. Part one features teams 16-30 and part two to be released either today or in the near future features 1-15. The Reds will be ranked somewhere in the top 15 as they weren't on yesterday's list. I'll be sure to post the Reds ranking when it's released.

By the way, they ranked the Cardinals system as the worst in baseball, with the Astros at 28 and the Brewers at 25.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=10172

[OnBaseMachine]

Part two was just released. BP has the Reds ranked 9th in their organizational rankings. Kevin Goldstein says the signing of Aroldis Chapman boosted the Reds from the second half to single digits.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=10183

[thatcoolguy_22]

Part two was just released. BP has the Reds ranked 9th in their organizational rankings. Kevin Goldstein says the signing of Aroldis Chapman boosted the Reds from the second half to single digits.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=10183

That comment from Goldstein seems suspect. No way should 1 prospect move you from (at best) 16 to the top ten imo. The Reds were a in the 9-12 range easily without Chapman, he's icing.

[Kingspoint]

I'll take that.

Top-10 seems about right.

[IslandRed]

That comment from Goldstein seems suspect. No way should 1 prospect move you from (at best) 16 to the top ten imo. The Reds were a in the 9-12 range easily without Chapman, he's icing.

This is the same guy who did the Top 101 prospects. His organizational rankings over the years, at least to my eyes, give credit for depth but have more of an eye out for star potential. (A case can be made for that; if the purpose of a farm system is to set up a team for excellence, one A/A+ player can have more impact than fistfuls of B/C types.) Before Chapman, his highest-rated Reds prospect was Leake at #59 (and we debated the absence of Alonso on the other thread). So it's safe to say his view of the Reds went from "good depth, low on star potential" to a much higher opinion of the system's star potential after adding Chapman into the mix.

[Caveat Emperor]

That comment from Goldstein seems suspect. No way should 1 prospect move you from (at best) 16 to the top ten imo. The Reds were a in the 9-12 range easily without Chapman, he's icing.

If you project Chapman as the real-deal -- a 100-mph throwing LHP with #1 starter potential -- then yeah: one guy can move you a lot.

One #1 starter is infinitely more valuable to a franchise than a half dozen tweeners who project as replacement-level players.

[SirFelixCat]

If you project Chapman as the real-deal -- a 100-mph throwing LHP with #1 starter potential -- then yeah: one guy can move you a lot.

One #1 starter is infinitely more valuable to a franchise than a half dozen tweeners who project as replacement-level players.

See the Reds in the last decade to understand that

[Kingspoint]

Quality over quantity is always the way to go.