John Sickels farm system rankings

[dougdirt]

John is now done with all of his rankings. I know he said he had a few changes to make still, so this could change ever so slightly, though I doubt it makes much of an impact overall.

I went through each system that John graded and took down the grade for both hitters and pitchers. Why did I do that? Well, hitters and pitchers have different values. The value's that I used were the ones first identified by Victor Wang in an article at The Hardball Times. The guys at Beyond The Box Score took that and made it into a monetary value. Here is what the average prospect was worth who fell in these ranges:

Top 10 hitters 	         $32.5M
Top 11-25 hitters 	 $22.3
Top 26-50 hitters 	 $20.8
Top 51-75 hitters 	 $12.6
Top 76-100 hitters 	 $11.1
Top 10 pitchers    	 $13.5
Top 11-25 pitchers 	 $14.2
Top 26-50 pitchers 	 $14.2
Top 51-75 pitchers 	 $10.8
Top 76-100 pitchers 	 $8.7
Grade B pitchers 	 $6.5
Grade B hitters 	 $4.9
Grade C pitchers <23     $1.9
Grade C pitchers >23     $1.3
Grade C hitters <23      $0.62
Grade C hitters >23      $0.45

Now I did have to make some adjustments. As we can see, Pitching prospects in the 11-50 range tend to be more valuable than those in the Top 10. To counteract that sense ideally, it shouldn't be that way, I made each pitching prospect in the Top 61 (B+ or better grade) worth 14.2M. Here is the value I gave each grade - split for pitchers and hitters:

	     	 A 	  A- 	  B+ 	  B 	 B- 	C+
H 	Value 	32.5 	22.3 	20.8 	12.6 	 4.9 	0.88
P 	Value 	14.2 	14.2 	14.2 	9.8 	 6.5 	2.6

For the C+ guys I had to change a little. I didn't go through the 268 players who were graded C+ to find the age. So what I did was take the average C grade (split the difference between the two grades). That made 1.6 for pitchers and 0.54 for hitters.I used the weighting for the B grade prospects to wind up with the C+ being worth the same for a C as the B+ was for the B grades. Now that we had the value for each type of prospect, I just ran the numbers for the different teams. One thing to note, I didn't include the grade C prospects because not all of the C prospects made each list, so the data was left out because it was incomplete. Here are the results:



Discuss.

[dougdirt]

For the record, John goes very tough on grading young prospects from the international scene. For example, he gave Yorman Rodriguez a C grade. Even if he were the highest C out there, that puts him as the 245th best position prospect in Sickels eyes. That isn't counting any pitcher at all. Of course that also applies to other teams players like that.

[thatcoolguy_22]

This is another list that tells Reds fans what we already know about our farm system; a lot of depth with minimal elite type players. A couple things though that I found odd...

Alonso is only a B+? I was under the assumption he was more highly regarded than that.

Also I think the toolshed that is Chapman would have had a higher value than an A-.

Not every team has elite (and still incredibly young) international prospects. This hurts the Reds total value all things considered. Sickels can say that Yorman is number 245 for positional players all he wants, but it will not cause me to give his list anymore credit...

Is Wood the only B graded pitcher?

[Joseph]

Very interesting work Doug. Really shows the value of the prospect in terms of big league roster dollars.

As for Alonso, I have to say I see him strictly as a DH who if he really works at it might make an decent first basemen. I have to assume I'm not the only one who sees him in that kind of light. Rating him a B+ is probably fair with his bat earning him the bulk of that rating. I think to be an A/A+ prospect one has to be a more well rounded player than Alonso is.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

For the record, John goes very tough on grading young prospects from the international scene. For example, he gave Yorman Rodriguez a C grade. Even if he were the highest C out there, that puts him as the 245th best position prospect in Sickels eyes. That isn't counting any pitcher at all. Of course that also applies to other teams players like that.

Doug, this is really cool. Great job!

This next comment has a weak Reds tie-in.... Using these translations and Sickels' ratings to look back at Bavasi's hallmark trade as the Ms GM really makes Bavasi look bad. He shipped off about $47M in minor league value plus another $9M in major league production (Sherrill roughly put up 2 WAR over the last two years) for Eric Bedard who produced 3 WAR for the Ms worth $13.5M on the market (for which the Ms paid him $14.75M). Finally tally-Bavasi paid $56M for Bedard who ended up providing -$1.25M worth of surplus value.

OUCH!

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by thatcoolguy_22

This is another list that tells Reds fans what we already know about our farm system; a lot of depth with minimal elite type players. A couple things though that I found odd...

Alonso is only a B+? I was under the assumption he was more highly regarded than that.

That grade could actually mean Alonso is a Top 20 prospect in baseball. He probably isn't for Sickels, but there were only 18 A or A- grades and an A for a hitter isn't an A for a pitcher, meaning an A- hitter could be a better prospect than an A pitcher in some cases.

Also I think the toolshed that is Chapman would have had a higher value than an A-.

Only 3 pitchers had an A grade. Chapman is certainly in elite company with that grade.

Not every team has elite (and still incredibly young) international prospects. This hurts the Reds total value all things considered. Sickels can say that Yorman is number 245 for positional players all he wants, but it will not cause me to give his list anymore credit...

I do agree some. At the very least Yorman should be a C+ guy. This year's top prospect Miguel Sano got a C+ grade (notably for Sickels team the Twins) despite not hitting .292 in the GCL as a 16 year old like Yorman.

Is Wood the only B graded pitcher?

Mike Leake got a B, though that may be changing as John said he may be a B+ and does have changes coming soon. Boxberger was a B-, Maloney and Wood both were a C+.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Joseph

Very interesting work Doug. Really shows the value of the prospect in terms of big league roster dollars.

As for Alonso, I have to say I see him strictly as a DH who if he really works at it might make an decent first basemen. I have to assume I'm not the only one who sees him in that kind of light. Rating him a B+ is probably fair with his bat earning him the bulk of that rating. I think to be an A/A+ prospect one has to be a more well rounded player than Alonso is.

Alonso is not a bad fielder. He is just limited to first base.

[jojo]

Didn't Sickels argue that Alonzo got his grade because JS isn't sure Alonzo can hit lefties?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by jojo

Didn't Sickels argue that Alonzo got his grade because JS isn't sure Alonzo can hit lefties?

Yes. I disagree with that statement, but that is why Alonso wound up with the grade that he did.

[REDblooded]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Yes. I disagree with that statement, but that is why Alonso wound up with the grade that he did.

So Alonso couldn't hit Chapman?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by REDblooded

So Alonso couldn't hit Chapman?

Chapman right now would probably just walk Alonso a lot.

[Vottomatic]

Alonso = Edgar Martinez

[Mario-Rijo]

I suppose I'm just a bonehead but I don't get what you have going on here Doug. I understand what your trying to say but the numbers don't seem to make sense. Could you please enlighten me?

[icehole3]

Just glancing at your rankings, great job by the way once again, it confirms in my mind what I've been saying every year, in the 2010 draft the Reds need to draft 5 pitchers in the first 6 rounds, I'd like to see something like that done every year.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by icehole3

Just glancing at your rankings, great job by the way once again, it confirms in my mind what I've been saying every year, in the 2010 draft the Reds need to draft 5 pitchers in the first 6 rounds, I'd like to see something like that done every year.

Why do you argue this?