RSS Twitter Facebook YouTube
Expand Menu

BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Talk shop about the various prospects and teams that make up the Cleveland Indians organization.

BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby gotribe31 » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:25 pm

Its a premium article. Interesting list. They are higher on Crowe than most, and lower on Huff. At least we agree that Weglarz is an impact bat. The commentary below is theirs, not mine:

https://baseballprospectus.com/article. ... cleid=8467

Five-Star Prospects
1. Matt LaPorta, LF
2. Carlos Santana, C
Four-Star Prospects
3. Nick Weglarz, LF
Three-Star Prospects
4. Adam Miller, RHP
5. Beau Mills, 1B
6. Hector Rondon, RHP
7. David Huff, LHP
8. Trevor Crowe, OF
9. Carlos Rivero, SS
10. Lonnie Chisenhall, SS
11. Michael Brantley, CF/1B

Just Missed: Kelvin De La Cruz, RHP; Wes Hodges, 3B; Luis Valbuena, 2B

The Sleeper: After missing all of 2007 recovering from Tommy John surgery, reliever Tony Sipp returned at the midpoint of 2008 and showed late-inning stuff from the left side.

Ranking Challenges: The upper half of the list was made up of a pretty clear-cut group of players, though many had different orders in mind. While the Indians don't have many wow-level guys, what they do have is impressive depth. Keep in mind that many team's lists hit the two-star prospects level within their Top 11, but with Cleveland it wouldn't show up until around the 20th player, and one official admitted that, even internally, you could ask seven people in the organization to rank the eighth- through 11th-best prospects and get back seven very different responses.


Top 10 Talents 25 And Under (as of Opening Day 2009)

1. Fausto Carmona, RHP
2. Matt LaPorta, LF
3. Carlos Santana, C
4. Nick Weglarz, LF
5. Adam Miller, RHP
6. Asdrubal Cabrera, 2B/SS
7. Beau Mills, 1B
8. Aaron Laffey, RHP
9. Hector Rondon, RHP
10. David Huff, LHP

The Indians have a lot of young talent, but there are many questions about just how good they are. I still believe in Carmona as a front-line starter, and my faith in Asdrubal Cabrera's talent remains high as well, with the hope that his strong second half in 2008 could lead to a 2009 breakout. Laffey is a solid back-end starter, but I'd rather have Huff than middle-of-the-road relievers like Jensen Lewis and Joe Smith. And yes, I'm pretty much done with Jeremy Sowers and Andy Marte.

Summary: The Indians system is short of up-the-middle-players and toolsy athletes, but they do provide considerable depth that should be able to fill the team's needs as they arrive to compete for AL Central titles over the next few years.
gotribe31
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Fairfax, VA

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:46 pm

If Crowe can build on last year and even improve.....he could turn into a better player than Jacoby Ellsbury. They have the same types of tools (speed, contact...'ok' power but nothing special). Many scouts liked Crowe better than Ellsbury too coming out of college (both played in the Pac-10).

The fact that it took Crowe 3 stints (4 if you count a late season callup) at AA to finally hit enough for a AAA callup doesn't bode that well for him, especially since he's a college player.....but maybe the move to 2B messed him up more than people realized.

Worst case, he becomes a very good 4th OFer IMO......I still like Brantley better as he's got the higher ceiling (again IMO).....but Crowe probably has the higher floor.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby dnosco » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:41 pm

Again, as I see these lists it makes me laugh. Hodges has the pox because somebody said he can't field (all evidence is there to support that, BTW, given his error total). De La Cruz is an easy omission because he is so young and struggled a little in his late-season high A callup.

My point is prospect ranking has become like the stock market in a skittish time. Any piece of information, how minor, is enough to make a guy drop significantly....

...except guys at the top. LaPorta's last 1/2 year is totally neglected as is Santana's questionable catching skills which, like Hodges defense, are statistically documented. We are told that there is a reason behind LaPorta's post-trade funk, so disregard it. Ditto for Santana, whose apparent deficiencies are due 100% to his inexperience as a catcher, although scouts can see through those bad stats to apparently see that he can become AN ABOVE AVERAGE major league catcher.

It's just funny that the mass hysteria (both up and down, depending on the stock) of the stock market, in my opinion, leaks into prospect rankings. I have long held that baseball prospect rankings and what they read on (e.g., the baseball draft) fail under their own faults rather than that "It (the draft, the trek through the minors, whatever you want to attribute 'it' to) is a crap shoot".
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:57 pm

Not sure how 17 bad games in Akron count as a 1/2 a year......he hit well in the Eastern League playoffs even. Did struggle in winter ball....but a lot of young guys do.


And again, you are the only person that seems to think Santana struggles behind the plate. The stats I've seen ALL point to him being an average to above average defensive catcher. Already has the arm and throws our runners. Not sure on his game-calling....but he's still young in that regards. Blocks balls pretty well from what I've read too. If you could list all these stats that show he's bad, I'd appreciate it....cuase I'm just not finding them.


I do agree with some of what you said....but not in bringing up Santana's supposive lack of ability to play behind the plate and LaPorta's 17 game struggle (plus a concussion in the Olympics). Santana by all accounts is as far along as Victor was at AA as far as defense for a catcher. And any hitter can struggle for 17 games like LaPorta did.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby dnosco » Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:15 pm

Hermie13 wrote:Not sure how 17 bad games in Akron count as a 1/2 a year......he hit well in the Eastern League playoffs even. Did struggle in winter ball....but a lot of young guys do.


And again, you are the only person that seems to think Santana struggles behind the plate. The stats I've seen ALL point to him being an average to above average defensive catcher. Already has the arm and throws our runners. Not sure on his game-calling....but he's still young in that regards. Blocks balls pretty well from what I've read too. If you could list all these stats that show he's bad, I'd appreciate it....cuase I'm just not finding them.


I do agree with some of what you said....but not in bringing up Santana's supposive lack of ability to play behind the plate and LaPorta's 17 game struggle (plus a concussion in the Olympics). Santana by all accounts is as far along as Victor was at AA as far as defense for a catcher. And any hitter can struggle for 17 games like LaPorta did.


LaPorta struggled in Akron's regular season, struggled in the Olympics and struggled in Winter Ball...but he didn't in the EL playoffs. Interestingly, people point to that but totally blew off when Crowe did the same thing in the past. Again, the "Some guys do" thing is the kind of rationalization I talk about. Hodges seemed to be OK on defense, not great, but OK, before this year, and now he is Harmon Killebrew. However, LaPorta HAS to be good and so we overlook that he is poor defensive outfielder and had, except for one stint, a bad last half o the year, which DOES include winter league.

Regarding Santana's defense see:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=1724

and

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/pro ... #more-1835

He ranked 44th in runners stealing (two spots ahead of Angel Salome who list part of the "Bad" list) and 30th in passed balls.

Now, you can debate the exact value of those stats, as Badler does, but c'mon, it's not like there is scant evidence that Santana's best position might not be catcher, unless you want to throw out the statistical evidence or minimize it to make your point by saying 'well, he's still learning how to catch'.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby JP_Frost » Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:24 pm

well, there's alot more to being a good catcher than throwing out runners. Actually, untill someone comes up with a reliable defensive stat for minor leaguers, I'd put alot more stock into what scouts see from these young guys. Passed balls, as well as errors, are ruled by the scorers, which means that it's pretty subjective. Who knows how many of these passed balls should've been ruled wild pitches? Defensive stats in general are pretty hard to judge and especially the basic ones used for minor leaguers.

That said, alot of scouts see Santana becoming an above average catcher because he's reportedly very agile behind the plate and has shown a feel for the position. As much as I value stats, with prospects you have to look beyond the numbers and focus more on what you see. Scouting reports and projections are a big part of evaluating young players, so numbers can be deceiving.

Anyway, I like this list, even though I'd rank Huff higher and I would replace Crowe with one of De La Cruz or Valbuena.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby MickS » Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:31 pm

Dennis, why aren't you foaming at the mouth over the Chisenhall ranking? You crucified the front office for that pick. Have you changed your mind?
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby jhonny » Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:18 pm

Santana just converted to catcher I thought. Should we not give him leeway when he has more things to learn? And I am surprised that dnosco is reading so much into 60 ABs or winterball statistics after he starts off by complaining about small pieces of information changing prospect ratings unfairly.
jhonny
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby endlesssleeper » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:25 pm

jhonny wrote:Santana just converted to catcher I thought. Should we not give him leeway when he has more things to learn? And I am surprised that dnosco is reading so much into 60 ABs or winterball statistics after he starts off by complaining about small pieces of information changing prospect ratings unfairly.


Indeed. Nosco's opinions are quite contradictory when he is supporting his own agendas. Nothing new there, though.
endlesssleeper
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:37 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:17 pm

MickS wrote:Dennis, why aren't you foaming at the mouth over the Chisenhall ranking? You crucified the front office for that pick. Have you changed your mind?


Please don't provoke him. Let the situation play out for Lonnie and we will see who had a better grasp of the situation.

We all take stands that in retrospect look/are foolish. It doesn't help when we are reminded of those situations at almost every turn.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby MickS » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:37 pm

"Please don't provoke him. Let the situation play out for Lonnie and we will see who had a better grasp of the situation.

We all take stands that in retrospect look/are foolish. It doesn't help when we are reminded of those situations at almost every turn."

When Dennis stops being provocative, I'll stop provoking him. Dennis was brutal in his criticism of that pick and I'm honestly interested in his views now. If he's going to be so forceful in his criticisms, then he deserves the opportunity to defend his views when the so-called experts disagree with him.
MickS
Draft Prospect
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:18 am

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby dnosco » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:59 pm

MickS wrote:Dennis, why aren't you foaming at the mouth over the Chisenhall ranking? You crucified the front office for that pick. Have you changed your mind?


I stand by what I said at the time:

"with other available talents at least as good or better than Chisenhall, why would a team that favors character guys draft him?"

I think he was an overdraft, to be sure. I said he couldn't stay at SS, which he won't. I said he won't hit for enough power to play third. Let's wait to see how this plays out. BTW, if you remember my possible picks were Gillaspie, Mehlville, DeVall and Odorizzi, if you want to have fun with that going forward. The first is already in the majors, the second was KC's #5 prospect, DeVall #14 for Atlanta and Odorizzi #11 for Milwaukee. Heck, if you want to have more fun, do a Mehlville vs Haley and Mehlville vs Phelps comparison going forward.
Last edited by dnosco on Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby dnosco » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:12 pm

endlesssleeper wrote:
jhonny wrote:Santana just converted to catcher I thought. Should we not give him leeway when he has more things to learn? And I am surprised that dnosco is reading so much into 60 ABs or winterball statistics after he starts off by complaining about small pieces of information changing prospect ratings unfairly.


Indeed. Nosco's opinions are quite contradictory when he is supporting his own agendas. Nothing new there, though.


No, my opinions are not contradictory at all. But, if you believe that, then believe it to yourself, because it isn't true and should not be pointed out as if it is a fact.

BTW, Santana has completed his second year at catcher, more than that if you count his time after the 2006 season in the instructional league. The post above says it all. Damn the statistics, I believe the scouts. Maybe that is correct, but the stats show he is not very good at catching after his second year...and we don't even really know how he is at handling pitchers. Hey, the Victory comp is nice and may be accurate but Victor, as I recall, started off as a middle infielder, Santana as a thirdbaseman corner outfielder. Read the linked articles above. They seem to give the impression that guys without a lof of mobility don't turn out to be very good catchers. Not saying Santana won't but nothing says that he will except for these scouts and the people who use their thoughts to make prospect lists. One thing to consider, though. What if the scouts said he wasn't a very good catcher but by stats he wasn't that bad? Would people just believe what they wanted about him? Probably. Just like they are now. We won't change each others' minds.

Regarding LaPorta, what I am saying is, at three different venues (Akron, Olympics, winter ball), save his postseason in Akron, he didn't perform after the trade which came just one year after he signed his first pro contract. He had exactly one year of pro ball before the trade and didn't perform very well afterward.

So, for the millionth time, let's wait to see how this plays out. I just hope I don't see this many excuses and reasons if things don't work out because, when you say they might not, there is no hiding or excuses when guys do work out, is there?

BTW, it is not exactly like I have said that Santana and LaPorta stink, have I? Look at where I ranked them in my top 100 list (3 and 4). But bringing that truth up gets in the way of a very good story, doesn't it?
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby jellis » Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:23 am

dnosco wrote:
MickS wrote:Dennis, why aren't you foaming at the mouth over the Chisenhall ranking? You crucified the front office for that pick. Have you changed your mind?


I stand by what I said at the time:

"with other available talents at least as good or better than Chisenhall, why would a team that favors character guys draft him?"

I think he was an overdraft, to be sure. I said he couldn't stay at SS, which he won't. I said he won't hit for enough power to play third. Let's wait to see how this plays out. BTW, if you remember my possible picks were Gillaspie, Mehlville, DeVall and Odorizzi, if you want to have fun with that going forward. The first is already in the majors, the second was KC's #5 prospect, DeVall #14 for Atlanta and Odorizzi #11 for Milwaukee. Heck, if you want to have more fun, do a Mehlville vs Haley and Mehlville vs Phelps comparison going forward.


i wanted gillaspie at the time but with his agent demanding a MLb contract I am glad we passed on him, I feel like if Lonnie had stayed at SC he would have been a top 10 pick in 2009 draft, when the red soxes by all account where going to draft him if there I think thats a great sign, I agree round 2 should have been meville, but phelps in round 3 was not a bad pick and I think even you have to agree he has been much better than expected when the pick occured
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby jhonny » Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:45 am

dnosco wrote:
endlesssleeper wrote:
jhonny wrote:Santana just converted to catcher I thought. Should we not give him leeway when he has more things to learn? And I am surprised that dnosco is reading so much into 60 ABs or winterball statistics after he starts off by complaining about small pieces of information changing prospect ratings unfairly.


Indeed. Nosco's opinions are quite contradictory when he is supporting his own agendas. Nothing new there, though.


No, my opinions are not contradictory at all. But, if you believe that, then believe it to yourself, because it isn't true and should not be pointed out as if it is a fact.

BTW, Santana has completed his second year at catcher, more than that if you count his time after the 2006 season in the instructional league. The post above says it all. Damn the statistics, I believe the scouts. Maybe that is correct, but the stats show he is not very good at catching after his second year...and we don't even really know how he is at handling pitchers. Hey, the Victory comp is nice and may be accurate but Victor, as I recall, started off as a middle infielder, Santana as a thirdbaseman corner outfielder. Read the linked articles above. They seem to give the impression that guys without a lof of mobility don't turn out to be very good catchers. Not saying Santana won't but nothing says that he will except for these scouts and the people who use their thoughts to make prospect lists. One thing to consider, though. What if the scouts said he wasn't a very good catcher but by stats he wasn't that bad? Would people just believe what they wanted about him? Probably. Just like they are now. We won't change each others' minds.

Regarding LaPorta, what I am saying is, at three different venues (Akron, Olympics, winter ball), save his postseason in Akron, he didn't perform after the trade which came just one year after he signed his first pro contract. He had exactly one year of pro ball before the trade and didn't perform very well afterward.

So, for the millionth time, let's wait to see how this plays out. I just hope I don't see this many excuses and reasons if things don't work out because, when you say they might not, there is no hiding or excuses when guys do work out, is there?

BTW, it is not exactly like I have said that Santana and LaPorta stink, have I? Look at where I ranked them in my top 100 list (3 and 4). But bringing that truth up gets in the way of a very good story, doesn't it?


We should see how this plays out!

As for the scouts, does it not matter how scouts reach their conclusion? Anyone can believe anything, but a well-reasoned thought out opinion described seems more likely to be true. Also, you're command of facts is misleading. Was not R. Martin a third baseman moved to catcher just like Santana by LA?

Laporta struggled in three different venues, yes. He also never played much in any of the venues, and got hit in the head at the Olympics. I give him a pass.

I think you are too concerned with statistics. Scouting reports are much better predictors of major league success. I agree that sometimes negatives can be airbrushed too much though. For instance, Laporta will not be an average fielding LF I do not think.
jhonny
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby JP_Frost » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:55 am

Dennis, now that Chisenhall has been moved to 3rd, isn't he essentially a younger Gillaspie with more upside (both offensively and defensively)?
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:05 am

dnosco wrote:I stand by what I said at the time:

"with other available talents at least as good or better than Chisenhall, why would a team that favors character guys draft him?"

I think he was an overdraft, to be sure. I said he couldn't stay at SS, which he won't. I said he won't hit for enough power to play third.


I agree he won't hit for enough power to play 3B....but according to his manager (Travis Fryman) he looks strong at SS, and Fryman believes he can stay there......though it is early. Fryman says he was pleasantly suprised by his range there....which bodes well for him. Means he could move to 2B, which would be a great spot for him if he doesn't develop a ton of power. I loved the pick at the time and still do.....though everyone has their opinions and you never know how things will play out in 3-4 years....


As far as Santana....thanks for the links (though unfortunately work has them blocked, but I'll check them out later).

Santana only had 67 games at catcher in 2007....with 20 passed balls....last year in over 100 he had 14. He is improving. Also remember you don't have to be a gold glover behind the plate.

Baseball Prospectus seems to think he can stick at catcher. They say his arm is well above average for a catcher and is fine. They question his game calling....though even for the greatest catchers, that's the last thing to develop. They say he had some troubles with blocking balls, but acted like it wasn't anything major. They also said worst case, he moves to 3B where he'd be an average defender and above average hitter. It's a wait and see with him too I guess.....he's shown HUGE improvements in just one year....odds are, he'll get better....but suppose you can debate that.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby dnosco » Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:43 pm

JP_Frost wrote:Dennis, now that Chisenhall has been moved to 3rd, isn't he essentially a younger Gillaspie with more upside (both offensively and defensively)?


You bring up the big point that is missing in my evaluation: seeing these guys. The projection the scouts make is that his power will develop enough to play 3B. I don't see that at all. Time will tell. I think, to your point, if they both project out based on current abilities that they would be close to identical players in the major leagues. Now, Chisenhall has more upside because he is a less finished product but, because he is a less finished product, he has significantly greater chance of not reaching that upside because it is further away in his development path.

I'll turn your analogy around. Back when we drafted Brad Snyder I was livid that we didn't take Conor Jackson. People argued, reasonably, that Snyder had more upside. I argued that Jackson was better because he was a more finished product. Turns out that I was right and, from then on, I always suggested taking the more finished product unless the guy had so much upside that he would have dwarfed the more finished product in the end, meaning that he might have even approached that guy even if the unfinished product didn't reach his full potential. Unfortunately, that level of unfinished product is usually only available in the first 10 picks of the draft, a place we seldom are. So, for me, Gillaspie over Chisenhall, like Jackson over Snyder, is the way I go when I don't have a lot of money, extra picks or other ways to offset if my top pick fails.

Plus, Gillaspie doesn't have the criminal history. While that may not play into a lot of people's evaluation it has to play into it somewhat. Hey, I did some crazy things when I was a kid but I really knew that stealing wasn't right. So, while it could easily have been an isolated incident, it is significantly more in my mind than 'boys being boys'.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:22 pm

I think one reason the Tribe didn't go after Connor Jackson is because they took Michael Aubrey already in that 1st round at 11. Jackson was more a 1B than OFer like Snyder (though jackson did play a lot of OF in the low minors and even some 3B). Jackson was no better than Aubrey and projected as a similar type player coming out of college, so takign a guy with more power potential in Snyder made sense.

Now obviously things didn't turn out that way....

The guy I was mad the Tribe didn't take that draft in place of Snyder was Chad Billingsley (the other Ohio boy in the draft). Best high school pitcher I've ever seen in Ohio. Instead we waited til later and took another high school pitching phenom in Adam Miller....can't fault that pick as without the injuries who knows how good he'd be.....but I was kinda shocked we passed on Billingsley....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:48 pm

I still don't understand the love for Gillaspie over Chisenhall. Chisenhall is only 1 year younger and out performed Gillaspie this year, showed more power (granted Gillaspie had few at-bats). Plus has shown the ability to play SS, which Gillaspie can't. Gillaspie also got a ML contract (or at least being added to the 40-man by years end).....I'm pretty positive the Tribe never would have given him that. Maybe they knew that's what he was looking for and turned them off. He now has only 3 years to become a solid MLer as his option clock is already ticking.....and he only has 5 at-bats above short-season A-ball so far.....


Plus, the Tribe has taken 'your' approach in the past with taken the more polished player rather than the high upside player. They took Mills last year instead of Heyward. Was that a bad move by the Tribe? Heyward had the higher potential but Mills was a much more polished player......
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby dnosco » Thu Feb 05, 2009 5:59 pm

Hermie13 wrote:I still don't understand the love for Gillaspie over Chisenhall. Chisenhall is only 1 year younger and out performed Gillaspie this year, showed more power (granted Gillaspie had few at-bats). Plus has shown the ability to play SS, which Gillaspie can't. Gillaspie also got a ML contract (or at least being added to the 40-man by years end).....I'm pretty positive the Tribe never would have given him that. Maybe they knew that's what he was looking for and turned them off. He now has only 3 years to become a solid MLer as his option clock is already ticking.....and he only has 5 at-bats above short-season A-ball so far.....


Plus, the Tribe has taken 'your' approach in the past with taken the more polished player rather than the high upside player. They took Mills last year instead of Heyward. Was that a bad move by the Tribe? Heyward had the higher potential but Mills was a much more polished player......


I imagine you are talking about college because Gillaspie's pro sample size is pretty small. If you are talking about college they played at completely different levels so there is no comparison.

Would I have taken Heyward over Mills? I don't think so, but I would have probably taken Blake Beaven, as I said at the time. I know, no the present value guy but Mills came out of a smaller college and I like Beaven's upside. Just my preference, I guess, even though Mills turned out to be the safer choice.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:50 pm

JP_Frost wrote:Dennis, now that Chisenhall has been moved to 3rd, isn't he essentially a younger Gillaspie with more upside (both offensively and defensively)?


I may have missed something, but at this point Chisenhall is still slotted to play SS. Plans to move him to 3B had been put on hold as of last Oct.....though this may have changed. We'll see in spring training!
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby JP_Frost » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:52 pm

Consigliere wrote:
JP_Frost wrote:Dennis, now that Chisenhall has been moved to 3rd, isn't he essentially a younger Gillaspie with more upside (both offensively and defensively)?


I may have missed something, but at this point Chisenhall is still slotted to play SS. Plans to move him to 3B had been put on hold as of last Oct.....though this may have changed. We'll see in spring training!


ah, my bad. I thought the move was made final after last season. If he is indeed moved off short, is there any chance they'll try him at second?
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby TonyIBI » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:56 pm

I think his future is at 2B, and say so in the book. :P
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby MadThinker88 » Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:57 pm

Consigliere wrote:I think his future is at 2B, and say so in the book. :P


JUST GET THE BOOK!!!!!
Like the pasta sauce ..... IT'S IN THERE!
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby dnosco » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:00 pm

Consigliere wrote:I think his future is at 2B, and say so in the book. :P


First, I agree with you, Tony. I think his offense plays at second base and given Jeff Kent and his 'defense' :s_rofl I think Chisenhall could have a long career (remember, the Wichita St. coach told he thought Gillaspie could handle that position, as well) at second. But, as I said in the top 100 thread, the Indians will screw around with him long enough to slow his development. If they just would have put him at 2B or RF he would get to the majors just as fast as his bat would carry him...because his defense at either of those two positions would be close to maxed out in the next three years...the time it takes him to get to the majors. Instead, he will play one year at SS, two years at 3B...and then move to his final position: LF, RF or 2B.

Second, I do like this draft pick in one major aspect: when you draft college or HS shortstops who can hit you are drafting a guy you can plug in at any position on the field, depending on how big you want him to get and/or he gets. It is the perfect position to draft a bat-first guy because the athleticism of that position gives you a lot of flexibility in where to play him as a pro.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:26 am

dnosco wrote:I imagine you are talking about college because Gillaspie's pro sample size is pretty small. If you are talking about college they played at completely different levels so there is no comparison.

Would I have taken Heyward over Mills? I don't think so, but I would have probably taken Blake Beaven, as I said at the time. I know, no the present value guy but Mills came out of a smaller college and I like Beaven's upside. Just my preference, I guess, even though Mills turned out to be the safer choice.


No, was talking about their pro numbers....which is why is stated that Gillaspie's sample size was small in my post.

One reason Gillaspie had the smaller sample size was problems with contracts talks. Again, perhaps the Tribe knew this before hand and chose to stay away from him. After the whole Guthrie fiasco, I'm sure they'll be avoiding giving ML deals to late 1st rounders for the time being.

And I agree with what you said later. SS is a great position to draft. Even a so-so SS like Peralta (yes, i know we didn't draft him) has the athletism to play multiple positions. He can play 3B obviously....if you can play SS you can play 2B. He's no burner, but can play the OF if needed I bet.

I disagree a bit though about Chisenhall...the Tribe is being smart to leave him at SS for now. Doesn't make much sense to move him to 2B right now. Only SS ahead of him is Rivero....who may also move from SS cause he's getting pretty big. I do see a move to 2B later in his career....but since he's not taking anyone's spot at SS for the moment, best to leave him there to work on his range and keep that arm strength up.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby dnosco » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:16 am

I disagree a little. There are THREE shortstops ahead of him:Peralta, Cabrera and Rivero. The former two are relatively young and Cabrera is under our control for a while, as is Rivero. The last I heard is that the Indians had already planned to move him to 3B next year, that decision happening right after the end of last season.

I think he needs to play 2B or RF starting right now.

I also disagree about the SS/2B correlation. Peralta can play SS but hasn't really played 2B. It is the turning the double play thing that separates SS who can and cannot play 2B. I think Peralta doesn't/can't do that and so he isn't considered a 2B man.

I think Gillaspie's contract negotiations went slow because the Giants wanted to go cheap. I think you have to throw out your argument on those grounds. I think the ML deal, if that is what it was, emphasizes the cheapness as they can spread the bonus out over a number of years on a ML deal.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:48 am

dnosco wrote:I disagree a little. There are THREE shortstops ahead of him:Peralta, Cabrera and Rivero. The former two are relatively young and Cabrera is under our control for a while, as is Rivero. The last I heard is that the Indians had already planned to move him to 3B next year, that decision happening right after the end of last season.

I think he needs to play 2B or RF starting right now.

I also disagree about the SS/2B correlation. Peralta can play SS but hasn't really played 2B. It is the turning the double play thing that separates SS who can and cannot play 2B. I think Peralta doesn't/can't do that and so he isn't considered a 2B man.

I think Gillaspie's contract negotiations went slow because the Giants wanted to go cheap. I think you have to throw out your argument on those grounds. I think the ML deal, if that is what it was, emphasizes the cheapness as they can spread the bonus out over a number of years on a ML deal.


ha, well that's true, but the first two are at the ML level already....and only one will play SS there. Plus, I'm not sold on Cabrera yet (and as it sounds, neither is the Indian's FO).

You could make the case there are as many people ahead of him at 2B and 3B as well then. Rodriguez, Cabrera, and Barfield all play 2B. Peralta, Hodges, and maybe Marte (though he's likely gone) are at 3B as well.

But in the minors....the only guy blocking him at SS is Rivero, and again, chisenhall may actually be the better defensive SS between the two.

And where did you hear they were movign Chisenhall to 3B? I recall hearing the opposite. Fryman, like I said, had nothing but good things to say about Chisenhall's defense and that he could still at SS. Considering Fryman was originally a SS before moving to 3B (which had nothing to do with his defense, but rather Alan Trammell blocking him in Detroit). If he believes Chisenhall can play the position, I'll take his word for it. Tribe doesn't have anyone else really to play SS at his leve, but do have a 3B option (and 2B)......

Also not sure why he should be in RF. If he doesn't hit for enough power to play 3B, he definitely won't hit for enough power to play RF. Makes more sense to play 3B than RF.


I disagree on peralta. I agree, turning the double play at 2B can be tricky....but if you have the quick footwork needed to handle 3B (which you can debate whether Pearlta has), then you shouldn't have much problem turning the double play at 2B.

In any case, that's not the reason Peralta hasn't been moved to 2B. His arm is strong even for a SS. Stronger than Cabrera's. Doesn't make much sense to flip-flop the two. Peralta's main problem is range....that won't change at 2B....though would be less of a problem.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: BP's top 11 Tribe prospects

Postby TonyIBI » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:49 am

By the way, I B-Pros listing a lot.....the only two issues I have is not having De La Cruz in the top 10 and having Trevor Crowe in the Top 10. Crowe absolutely does not belong in there based on the at least 12 better guys in the system. How he is above Brantley is sort of mind boggling.....but to each their own I guess.

Was talking to someone about this over lunch on Thursday. A guy like Brantley at #11/#12 this year would have been #3 or #4 last year. Maybe even #2. That's how strong the system is this year and really how "undefined" it was last year.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm


Return to Indians Prospect Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest