John Sickels' Rankings

[Scrap Irony]

From his website:

I have 41 players on the Reds list. The results so far:

One Grade A-
Three Grade B+
One Grade B
Three Grade B-
Four Grade C+
20 Grade C
Nine Ungrade

My guesses:

A-
Hamilton

B+
Stephenson
Cingrani
Corcino

B
Winker

B-
Hoover
Guillon
Travieso

C+
H. Rodriguez
Reynoso
Langfield
Soto

Completely off the top of my head.
His list comes out on Monday, so let's get lists out. Winner earns praise and respect. Or at least a grudging admiration.

[dougdirt]

I think the list may be coming out later tonight. When he said he will finalize all grades, I believe he means revisiting some grades for guys he wasn't completely sure on (he mentioned that earlier this week).

[Steve4192]

You guesses for the top five sounds about right.

Beyond them, the Reds system really doesn't have much. Promotions and trades have really gutted the depth of the Reds system over the last year. All those guys rated below B are either low ceiling / high floor bench fodder or high ceiling / no floor lottery tickets.

[dougdirt]

I like the amount of lottery tickets though. We used to hardly have any (after almost only having them in the Jimbo era). I think the system is a little stronger than some may give it credit for. There is a decent drop off after the Top 6 guys, but the next group is pretty darn deep. Baseball America ranked Reynoso in their Top 10 with a scouting report incredibly similar to the one I had written on him and I had him ranked 25th AFTER trading Didi Gregorius.

4 Top 100 (probably Top 75) prospects, and a lot of depth is something that you can really work with, especially when that depth comes along with several lottery ticket types.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

You guesses for the top five sounds about right.

Beyond them, the Reds system really doesn't have much. Promotions and trades have really gutted the depth of the Reds system over the last year. All those guys rated below B are either low ceiling / high floor bench fodder or high ceiling / no floor lottery tickets.

Not really. There are C prospects in Sickels' rankings that end up quite serviceable. Especially lower level guys.

They've got guys like Chad Rogers, Bryson Smith, and Steve Selsky, for example, who've really outshone their draft position, but have questions because of that same draft position.

They've got guys like Yorman Rodriguez and Neftali Soto who've had very good seasons and high prospect rankings in the past, but struggled last season.

They've got guys like Kyle Lotzkar and Henry Rodriguez, who battled injuries and should be much improved this season (if healthy).

Then they've got wildcards like Tanner Rahier, Seth Mejias-Brean, Gelalich, Reynoso, and other young guys from Dayton and lower.

I love that they have so many C level guys. In fact, one of my favorites-- Juan Perez-- isn't even being analyzed by Sickels.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

Not really. There are C prospects in Sickels' rankings that end up quite serviceable. Especially lower level guys.

Those are the lottery tickets. It's great when a C prospect pans out, and it does happen on occasion, but the vast majority of them never amount to a hill of beans. Everyone remembers the handful of lottery tickets that pan out and forgets the bushel baskets full of lottery tickets that wash out.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I like the amount of lottery tickets though. We used to hardly have any (after almost only having them in the Jimbo era).

I agree that quantity can produce quality in and of itself. If the Reds have ten lottery tickets and 80% of them wash out, that still means they get two quality major leaguers out of the deal. The real trick though is to trade some of that 80% while they are still considered prospects.If you can develop two legit major leaguers and flip some of the chaff for another one, you are ahead of the game.

[mth123]

Looks like only 2 B- guys in the final ranking.

Hamilton A-, Stephenson, Cingrani and Corcino B+, Winker B, Travieso and Hoover B-. He had Lotzkar at 8 with a C+ with everybody down to 17 at C+. Y-Rod was 18 with a C.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by mth123

Looks like only 2 B- guys in the final ranking.

Hamilton A-, Stephenson, Cingrani and Corcino B+, Winker B, Travieso and Hoover B-. He had Lotzkar at 8 with a C+ with everybody down to 17 at C+. Y-Rod was 18 with a C.

Apparently Stephenson and Travieso are both potential number 2's? I hate when people factor likelihood into potential.

[Benihana]

Originally Posted by mth123

Looks like only 2 B- guys in the final ranking.

Hamilton A-, Stephenson, Cingrani and Corcino B+, Winker B, Travieso and Hoover B-. He had Lotzkar at 8 with a C+ with everybody down to 17 at C+. Y-Rod was 18 with a C.

That is consistent with how I had them (although I don't include Hoover in my rankings). I put Guillon ahead of Lotzkar at this point- but after Winker and maybe Travieso, you could put the next 10 guys in almost any order and it wouldn't matter.

I really like Sickels as he seems to usually be the most consistent with my own thinking.

That said, I think everyone recognizes that there is the top 6 and then everybody else. Of course there is some separation within the top 6 as well.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by Superdude

Apparently Stephenson and Travieso are both potential number 2's? I hate when people factor likelihood into potential.

I always enjoy when prospect hounds try to pigeonhole a guy as a #1, #2, etc. The reality is, if a guy is good enough to profile as a #2, he's good enough to become a #1 if his development goes well. Look no further than Johnny Cueto, who most prospect hounds had as a MOR starter at best, power reliever at worst. Johnny just kept going out there and proving them wrong.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by Benihana

That said, I think everyone recognizes that there is the top 6 and then everybody else. Of course there is some separation within the top 6 as well.

I think of it more as the top four then everybody else, with Winker being the clear #1 among 'everybody else' and Travieso as the best of the rest. I just don't think Winker/Travieso compare with the huge upside of Stephenson or the body of work of the three guys on the brink of the majors.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

I always enjoy when prospect hounds try to pigeonhole a guy as a #1, #2, etc. The reality is, if a guy is good enough to profile as a #2, he's good enough to become a #1 if his development goes well. Look no further than Johnny Cueto, who most prospect hounds had as a MOR starter at best, power reliever at worst. Johnny just kept going out there and proving them wrong.

I get where you are coming from, but what gets me even more is the whole "scout speak" of what a #1 or #2 even is. Oh, there are only 10-15 #1's in baseball. Really? This isn't 1954 anymore guys, there are 30 teams, therefore in an even distribution of talent, there are 30 guys qualified to be a #1. Likewise with a #2, 3, 4 and 5. Yes, Justin Verlander is likely to be significantly better than the 30th best pitcher. So what? Joey Votto is a whole lot better than most other #3 hitters in the game, but you don't have to be Joey Votto good to be a #3 hitter or there would only be 2 or 3 of them.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

I think of it more as the top four then everybody else, with Winker being the clear #1 among 'everybody else' and Travieso as the best of the rest. I just don't think Winker/Travieso compare with the huge upside of Stephenson or the body of work of the three guys on the brink of the majors.

I think there is a top 3, gap, next three, then a big gap, then a group of about 25-30 guys who can probably all be rather close to each other depending on how you want to look at things.

Hamilton, Stephenson, Corcino.
Travieso, Winker, Cingrani.





Everyone else.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

I always enjoy when prospect hounds try to pigeonhole a guy as a #1, #2, etc. The reality is, if a guy is good enough to profile as a #2, he's good enough to become a #1 if his development goes well. Look no further than Johnny Cueto, who most prospect hounds had as a MOR starter at best, power reliever at worst. Johnny just kept going out there and proving them wrong.

Seems extra silly in Stephenson's case. I can see where Cueto may not have looked like an ace coming up, but Stephenson has an arm that rivals just about anyone in the game today. He obviously 'could' be an ace, and I'd say the same for Travieso at this point.