John Sickels' Rankings

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

In reading the article, it looks like Sickles ranks Traversio equal to Hoover, and he has glowing praise for Hoover. Both are B-. That seems to mean Traversio is getting respect.
It's almost as if this list has anyone a B- or higher as a good bet to make the majors.

What he says on Cingrani is exciting too. I think this is the first article that has acknowledged that maybe Cingrani is more than just a middle reliever.

Given where Cingrani has been ranked in the league and team rankings by BA, it is clear that hardly anyone thinks he is just a middle reliever.

[M2]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Have you read the BA scouting report from the AZL Top 20 (which calls his breaking ball potentially plus and also says his change up has good movement and some deception, but he needs to control it better)?

His report in the 2013 Reds list was rather brief. Basically though, it sounds like almost every other high schooler ever drafted. Good fastball velocity, inconsistent breaking ball, working on change up.

Read it, potentially plus, potentially not. That means they're not sold on it. Every young pitcher is working on every pitch, but Travieso's slider (from all reports) is still a work in progress.

The problem Travieso has is that he does profile like almost every other high schooler, not like a special one. What these capsules are telling us is they don't see him as special quite yet. We'll see if he can be something like a Jose Fernandez or Robert Stephenson in a year and less like Joseph Ross or Kevin Matthews.

Plus, you're familiar enough with how BA and Sickels do their work. They talk to a ton of people before they release their rankings. They're reflecting some overall skepticism about Travieso. Sickels is grading Jose Berrios and Lucas Sims higher right now. Travieso is in a B- pile with some guys who have injury concerns (Ty Hensley, Zach Eflin), didn't get to debut in 2012 (Matt Smoral) and who have admitted placeholder grades (Shane Watson). All of those pitchers could sink like a stone if they don't deliver in 2013.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by M2

Read it, potentially plus, potentially not. That means they're not sold on it. Every young pitcher is working on every pitch, but Travieso's slider (from all reports) is still a work in progress.

The problem Travieso has is that he does profile like almost every other high schooler, not like a special one. What these capsules are telling us is they don't see him as special quite yet. We'll see if he can be something like a Jose Fernandez or Robert Stephenson in a year and less like Joseph Ross or Kevin Matthews.

Plus, you're familiar enough with how BA and Sickels do their work. They talk to a ton of people before they release their rankings. They're reflecting some overall skepticism about Travieso. Sickels is grading Jose Berrios and Lucas Sims higher right now. Travieso is in a B- pile with some guys who have injury concerns (Ty Hensley, Zach Eflin), didn't get to debut in 2012 (Matt Smoral) and who have admitted placeholder grades (Shane Watson). All of those pitchers could sink like a stone if they don't deliver in 2013.

The amount of 18 year olds with a current PLUS breaking ball can be counted on one hand over the last 10 years. They simply don't exist. Every last one of them is still working on the consistency of the pitch.

Again, I just see this as you trying to read far too deep into this. Of course someone is skeptical of an 18 year old pitcher. The amount of 18 year old pitchers without question marks on them in the last 30 years are limited to Dwight Gooden, Felix Hernandez and who?

Sure, they aren't saying he is a Top 100 prospect right now. Maybe not a special pitcher right now. What is shocking about that? He was a late first round draft pick, not a Top 10 guy.

[texasdave]

How would the people who follow these things more closely rank the farm systems of the teams in the N.L. Central?

Using a very quick and crude ratings' system, the Reds are holding up the division.

6 points for an A, 5 points for an A- and so on yields this result:

TEAM	A	A-	B+ 	B	B-	C+ 	TOT 	PTS
STL	2	1	2	2	5	12	24	53
CHI	0	1	2	1	8	17	29	49
PIT	1	1	3	1	5	11	22	47
MIL	0	0	0	4	7	11	22	37
CIN 	0	1	3	1	2	10	17	34

The TOT column is the number of prospects each team has, per John Sickels, that grade out at C+ or better. The PTS column is the value of all the C+ or better prospects using the allotment system above. The Reds come in last in both categories.

Does that necessarily follow that they have the worst N.L. Central farm system at this point in time? The Reds are a fairly young team at the major league level, so they have time to build the system back up.

[M2]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

The amount of 18 year olds with a current PLUS breaking ball can be counted on one hand over the last 10 years. They simply don't exist. Every last one of them is still working on the consistency of the pitch.

You're splitting hairs and you know it. No one expects a plus breaking pitch from a HS arm (and pre-schedule his TJ surgery now if he's got one). Yet Travieso's slider is, at least from what we're being told by neutral evaluators, farther away than many others. Steve noted there might be bias cooked into that. I agreed and added it might also reflect that not enough scouts have seen enough of Travieso. So I've been perfectly open to the notion that his slider at present might be better than he's getting credit for.

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Again, I just see this as you trying to read far too deep into this. Of course someone is skeptical of an 18 year old pitcher. The amount of 18 year old pitchers without question marks on them in the last 30 years are limited to Dwight Gooden, Felix Hernandez and who?

Actually I was reading just about shallowly into it as humanly possible. They ranked him about where you'd expect given his draft position, but the writeups were mildly critical/skeptical. It's right there in plain black and white.

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Sure, they aren't saying he is a Top 100 prospect right now. Maybe not a special pitcher right now. What is shocking about that? He was a late first round draft pick, not a Top 10 guy.

Nothing's shocking about that. Like I said he's in line with a number of other HS arms who could go either way from the 2012 draft, begging the question of why you're getting worked up over me noting some mild skepticism on the kid.

Listen, you need to pick an argumentative stance here. If it's "of course there's some skepticism," then we agree. If it's that scouts really love him and think he's got a really great breaking ball, then argue away even though I've yet to find anyone out in the ether who is also taking that stance (and feel free to point out if someone does).

[Edd Roush]

Originally Posted by texasdave

How would the people who follow these things more closely rank the farm systems of the teams in the N.L. Central?

Using a very quick and crude ratings' system, the Reds are holding up the division.

6 points for an A, 5 points for an A- and so on yields this result:

TEAM	A	A-	B+ 	B	B-	C+ 	TOT 	PTS
STL	2	1	2	2	5	12	24	53
CHI	0	1	2	1	8	17	29	49
PIT	1	1	3	1	5	11	22	47
MIL	0	0	0	4	7	11	22	37
CIN 	0	1	3	1	2	10	17	34

The TOT column is the number of prospects each team has, per John Sickels, that grade out at C+ or better. The PTS column is the value of all the C+ or better prospects using the allotment system above. The Reds come in last in both categories.

Does that necessarily follow that they have the worst N.L. Central farm system at this point in time? The Reds are a fairly young team at the major league level, so they have time to build the system back up.

I would offer a much higher weight to at least the A and A- prospects than you do in your system. In your system, Billy Hamilton is worth less than 2 of Milwaukee's B prospects. I doubt the Reds would trade Billy for those two. Maybe a 10 8 6 4 2 1 system would be more appropriate. Or even a 12 9 6 4 2 1 system.

Either way, per Sickels (and probably many other evaluators), it appears that the Reds system isn't as loaded as the rest of the division outside of Milwaukee. The Reds have clearly cashed out their system to improve the big league team. Hopefully guys like Winker, Traveiso and Stephenson make major strides next year so the Reds can have more A and A- prospects once Billy graduates. There is also a strong chance that Corcino could be an A or A- prospect if he pitches well in Louisville and/or Pensacola and doesn't lose his eligibilty. Also, if the Reds sign a lefty reliever and the Cincy rotation stays healthy, Cingrani could be an A or A- prospect as well. There could be a few wildcards who make a big jump in 2013 too.

[M2]

Originally Posted by texasdave

How would the people who follow these things more closely rank the farm systems of the teams in the N.L. Central?

Using a very quick and crude ratings' system, the Reds are holding up the division.

6 points for an A, 5 points for an A- and so on yields this result:

TEAM	A	A-	B+ 	B	B-	C+ 	TOT 	PTS
STL	2	1	2	2	5	12	24	53
CHI	0	1	2	1	8	17	29	49
PIT	1	1	3	1	5	11	22	47
MIL	0	0	0	4	7	11	22	37
CIN 	0	1	3	1	2	10	17	34

The TOT column is the number of prospects each team has, per John Sickels, that grade out at C+ or better. The PTS column is the value of all the C+ or better prospects using the allotment system above. The Reds come in last in both categories.

Does that necessarily follow that they have the worst N.L. Central farm system at this point in time? The Reds are a fairly young team at the major league level, so they have time to build the system back up.

I think the Reds have the most undefined system right now with a lot of potential for upward grade movement in the next year if various players deliver. I thought Sickels graded the Cubs pretty generously.

Also, a weighting system that puts a little more value on higher grades would push the Reds ahead of the Brewers. And somebody in Pittsburgh ought to be made to answer for why such a consistently horrible team doesn't have a better system.

[texasdave]

I can see adjusting the point values for each grade and weighting it a little heavier towards the higher prospects.

Using the 12-9-6-4-2-1 point-value system yields this result:

TEAM	A	A-	B+ 	B	B-	C+ 	TOT 	PTS
STL	24	9	12	8	10	12	24	75
PIT	0	0	0	0	0	0	22	64
CHI	0	0	0	0	0	0	29	58
CIN 	0	0	0	0	0	0	17	45
MIL	0	0	0	0	0	0	22	41

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by texasdave

Does that necessarily follow that they have the worst N.L. Central farm system at this point in time?

It depends how define worst.

If you define it as the amount of talent currently residing in their minor league system, perhaps.

If you define it as their ability to draft/sign and develop major league talent from the ground up, the answer is absolutely not.

The ultimate goal of a minor league is to produce major leaguers, not to get high rankings from prospect hounds. The Reds have done a fantastic job over the last couple of years in utilizing their farm system to increase the talent of their major league ballclub (both through trades and promotions). When you graduate/trade a bunch of guys as the Reds have done recently, you are going to have a drop off in the system rankings. It is inevitable. Every good team goes through peaks and valleys with their minor leagues, because they are consistently raiding the minor league cupboard to improve their major league team. Nobody wants to have a minor league system that is always full of prospects, because that means none of them are making it to the majors.

[texasdave]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

It depends how define worst.

If you define it as the amount of talent currently residing in their minor league system, perhaps.

If you define it as their ability to draft/sign and develop major league talent from the ground up, the answer is absolutely not.

The ultimate goal of a minor league is to produce major leaguers, not to get high rankings from prospect hounds. The Reds have done a fantastic job over the last couple of years in utilizing their farm system to increase the talent of their major league ballclub (both through trades and promotions). When you graduate/trade a bunch of guys as the Reds have done recently, you are going to have a drop off in the system rankings. It is inevitable. Every good team goes through peaks and valleys with their minor leagues, because they are consistently raiding the minor league cupboard to improve their major league team. Nobody wants to have a minor league system that is always full of prospects, because that means none of them are making it to the majors.

I agree that there are different ways to measure the effectiveness of the farm system. I was just looking at Sickel's ratings as a snapshot. I could have worded things a little better.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by M2

Listen, you need to pick an argumentative stance here. If it's "of course there's some skepticism," then we agree. If it's that scouts really love him and think he's got a really great breaking ball, then argue away even though I've yet to find anyone out in the ether who is also taking that stance (and feel free to point out if someone does).

My stance is that you are reading too far into things if you think his scouting reports are hinting at some sort of questions by scouts that they don't have about just about everyone else who has ever been a high school pitcher out of the draft.

[texasdave]

This guy sounds like a scout. Not very complimentary about the Reds' AZL players.

http://thebaseballprospect.blogspot....prospects.html

http://thebaseballprospect.blogspot....instructs.html

He says he will talk in greater depth about the players he has seen out there if anyone is interested.

Have worked for 2 major league baseball teams and worked in baseball since 2007.

If you would like to discuss what I have seen in a player in greater depth, or wish to tell me I am a moron for seeing a player a certain way, feel free to contact me at:

timothyekay@gmail.com

[M2]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

My stance is that you are reading too far into things if you think his scouting reports are hinting at some sort of questions by scouts that they don't have about just about everyone else who has ever been a high school pitcher out of the draft.

No, I think I was pretty clear about this: they've got questions about Travieso. FWIW, they don't like him as much as they did Stephenson last year, but Stephenson is one of those small number of HS arms on whom some fairly serious expectations get placed. Travieso isn't one of those guys and he's going to have to convert some people - that was my point.

[AtomicDumpling]

Regarding Travieso, I don't think the scouts are downgrading him because they don't like his stuff. They just haven't been able to grade him at all yet, because they have not gotten a good look at his stuff yet. It is hard to rank a guy too highly when you have not seen him pitch in real games where he was using his full repertoire. The few times that Travieso has pitched in public he was in instructional mode and was not in full competition mode. We won't know what we really have in Travieso until the games start this season. All we know is he has a big arm and has had very little experience and had hardly received any coaching until he reported to the Reds. The scouts don't dislike his stuff, they just haven't seen his true stuff yet, so they are not going to give him a high grade until they get a good look at him first.


Here is a scouting report and video of Travieso from just before he was drafted by the Reds: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...t-and-analysis

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

It is hard to rank a guy too highly when you have not seen him pitch in real games where he was using his full repertoire. The few times that Travieso has pitched in public he was in instructional mode and was not in full competition mode. We won't know what we really have in Travieso until the games start this season.

Completely agree. There's just no point in evaluating what Travieso did last summer, and I was a little surprised to see BA even go down that road. It's like questioning Tiger Woods because he missed some greens on the driving range. Next year we'll see what we really have in the kid.