Pedro Beato? I thought the Mets drafted him.

The NL west rankings don't come out until February. Ugh.

Levski, the Mets drafted him last year but weren't able to sign him.

Thanks, Dan. I find it surprising; the Mets didn't have high picks last year, IIRC, so they should have had the budget to sign him. Then again, I have no idea how much he was asking, and whether he was even worth his bonus demands.

In general, there really is no excuse for rich teams like NYY, BOS and NYM to let premium talent return to the draft because of bonus demands. Or for not being super aggressive in the international free agent market. Just my 2c.

Wow, I've never even heard of seven of those guys. Does that say mroe about me, or the Orioles' farm system?

It's hard to say why the Mets didn't sign Beato. Fans talk like big market teams don't have a budget but the Mets did sign Pelfrey, Fernando, Guerra, and Pena since the 2005 draft.

I think levski is just taking a circuitous route to ragging on Minaya again.

Anyone want to take bets on what post # Rob Base will show up to fire back?

I'll take lucky 13.

Billy Rowell is just so, so good. He'll be a top 10 prospect in baseball next year.
And I love this bit about him:

Rowell's biggest challenge might be integrating himself into a professional team. He's so accustomed to working out on his own, with his own routines in his own cage, that he'll have to learn to be part of a larger group. And, perhaps not surprising for a player who has said he models his game after Barry Bonds, he has a considerable ego as well.

Link

He's going to make New Jersey proud.

BA also projects starting lineups for 2010 as part of these reviews. The projection for the Orioles includes Brandon Snyder at 1B, and Tejada still at SS. I feel relatively safe in predicting that neither of those will happen. I don't see Snyder developing enough of a bat to being a regular at 1B.

The scouting report (subscriber only) on Beato suggests that he might open at Frederick. I'd be shocked if that happened; I don't think he's ready to skip a level.

-- MWE

It's hard to say why the Mets didn't sign Beato.

Actually, it's very easy to say why the Mets didn't sign Beato. MLB didn't want them going above slot, and the Mets agreed not to do so.

-- MWE

I actually think that list isn't that bad. Erbe looks like a stud, Rowell is a great hitter (reminds me of billy butler but with better defense), Reimold may not be a star but he should at least be a contributor, Snyder is still young, Olson is improving... this list is a lot better looking now than it was at this time last year

Will Lingo chat:

Tripper Johnson will be departing as a minor league free agent.

Snyder will almost certainly be a 1B/DH next year. The shoulder and elbow injuries could mean that he won't ever catch.

The Orioles fixed some of Erbe's mechanics and remain convinced that he can be a starter.

Reimold isn't likely to be able to play CF in the majors, and there are concerns that he's mostly a mistake hitter whose weaknesses will be exposed as he moves up.

Keiron Pope is a high-risk/potentially high-reward type of player. The Orioles basically had to remake him from scratch, so no ones should expect him to move quickly, but it's way too early to write him off.

Fiorentino regained some of his lost luster with a strong finish. He still doesn't project as a regular but is likely to make a more-than-adequate fourth OF.

-- MWE

MLB didn't want them going above slot, and the Mets agreed not to do so.


I never heard that before. Makes sense.

Well, it was relatively common knowledge at the time that Beato was signed by the Orioles that the Mets were furious with MLB for recommending that they not go above slot for him. There's little question that the Mets could have signed Beato for less than he eventually got from the Orioles.

-- MWE

I never heard that before. Makes sense.

I don't see how it makes sense from the Mets perspective. Why should they care what MLB recommends? Paying over slot for hard to sign draft picks is one of the ways they can leverage their financial advantage. The Yankees and Red Sox have started doing this, why shouldn't the Mets? And I say this as a Yankee fan.

I don't see how it makes sense from the Mets perspective. Why should they care what MLB recommends?

Because Fred Wilpon is not Steinbrenner. He and the Mets think that the slotting system has long-term benefits even to the big-market teams and that by generally going along (within reason), they can help to make it work effectively to hold down draft bonuses. They won't do it for a genuine stud like Kazmir or Milledge, but Beato wasn't (and isn't) in that class and so it was one they felt they could get in line on. But it only works if everyone plays, and the Mets won't get burned too often playing Mr. Nice Guy.

why shouldn't the Mets?

I know that Selig lays out fines for teams that pay above slot, although I think the amount/extent of the fines is never revealed. That protocol is near & dear to Selig's heart, and the Mets may have taken one for the team (the owners, that is) last year. There are a few teams, however, that have consistently paid above slot for players; the DBacks & Dodgers, I believe, are two of them.

I know that Selig lays out fines for teams that pay above slot, although I think the amount/extent of the fines is never revealed.

I am as certain as I can be that Selig is not penalizing teams financially for paying above slot. The slotting system is unofficial because it hasn't been collectively bargained - that's why the slot numbers are couched as "recommendations". If Selig were fining teams for paying above slot, the MLBPA could - and certainly would -file a grievance claiming that MLB was trying to enforce a modification to the draft system without going through collective bargaining, and they would win such a grievance. And there is no question whatsoever that the MLBPA would find out about fines for paying above slot from somone.

Beato was drafted in the 17th round in '05. MLB recommended that Beato receive no more than $800K based on their expectation of where Beato would likely be drafted in 2006 (which in turn was based on scouting reports provided by the teams). As Sam M. noted in #16, the Mets went along with MLB's recommendation, largely because they believed that Beato would not be a high pick. The Orioles upset the apple cart by taking Beato with their supplemental 1st rounder, and the Mets were reportedly furious afterward - not with the Orioles, but with MLB, because they believed that MLB may have known about the possibility that Beato would go high and didn't properly account for it in their slot recommendation. Every report suggested that the Mets were prepared to offer Beato something close to the $1 million he actually accepted from the Orioles.

-- MWE

I think levski is just taking a circuitous route to ragging on Minaya again.

that's b.s.

Sure, just pay them anything they want. Much more than they deserve? Who cares, we have the money!

no, it's more along the lines of "if you have the payroll, don't go for matt bush if you can get stephen drew". and yes, the mets didn't take matt bush.

teams with high payrolls should leverage them to get pay a little extra for premium talent to load up their farm system, especially if that talent is falling due to signability concerns. what is an extra half a million to a team like the mets? one year of jose lima? please.

It's certainly a better list than any one headed by Nerio Rodriguez, Ryan Minor or Keith Reed.

ok, Mike, I thought I had read about fines, but I guess I just translated Selig's 'wrath' against teams signing checks above slot into something more substantial. Your explanation about the CBA makes sense, and maybe I underestimated the ability of Selig to unite the owners for a mutual cause without some sort of penalty.

However, the whole idea that the Mets were misled about who Beato was/is, seems lacking. The Mets have plenty of scouts who judge players, and the moment they let Beato go back into the draft, they had to be pretty certain that they would no longer get him.

teams with high payrolls should leverage them to get pay a little extra for premium talent to load up their farm system, especially if that talent is falling due to signability concerns.

Beato didn't fall to the 17th round in '05 because of signability concerns, but because he was coming off TJ surgery. He recovered nicely in '06, but the analysis on him had him going late supplemental/early 2nd round, which would have put his slot money at about what MLB recommended to the Mets - the slot money for the late supplemental round picks was between $750K and $850K, although the Yankees went above slot for Chamberlain (no shock there).

FWIW, the Diamondbacks did go above slot for Anderson, their second-rounder, and will also go above slot if/when they sign Scherzer.

-- MWE

the moment they let Beato go back into the draft, they had to be pretty certain that they would no longer get him.

The moment they let Beato go back into the draft they *could* no longer get him, IIRC; I'm pretty sure teams can't redraft players that they've failed to sign previously.

Some reports prior to the draft were that the Mets were prepared to offer Beato $1.5 million to sign, and while I don't necessarily believe that, I'm fairly confident that the Mets would have gone to $1 million. But MLB's recommended bonus for Beato - based on their expectation of where Beato was likely to be picked in '06 - was $810,000, so that's what the Mets offered. And had Beato actually *been* drafted late supplemental/early second - unless the Yankees had taken him instead of Chamberlain, which they may very well have done had Beato been available - they'd have been right. Had the Mets any real expectation that Beato would go as high as he did, they'd have gone that high as well. It seems pretty clear that the Mets didn't expect Beato to go that high - what's not clear is whether that was based on their own reports, the Scouting Bureau's assurances, or some combination thereof. But the reports I read afterward, when Beato was drafted, suggest that the Mets relied heavily on what they were told by the Bureau, and that's why they were upset when Beato was taken by the Orioles and signed fairly quickly for a million.

For a number of reasons, though, I don't think the Mets are going to look back on this with a great deal of regret. Beato doesn't strike me as having rotation-anchor talent, and some of the reports I've read suggest that there might be some "coachability" concerns with him. It's way too early to predict how he might turn out, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him flame out quickly.

-- MWE

The moment they let Beato go back into the draft they *could* no longer get him, IIRC; I'm pretty sure teams can't redraft players that they've failed to sign previously.
If I'm not mistaken, the player has to sign a waiver granting permission.

If I'm not mistaken, the player has to sign a waiver granting permission.

That's right. I knew there was an exception, but I didn't remember what it was.

-- MWE

For a number of reasons, though, I don't think the Mets are going to look back on this with a great deal of regret. Beato doesn't strike me as having rotation-anchor talent, and some of the reports I've read suggest that there might be some "coachability" concerns with him. It's way too early to predict how he might turn out, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him flame out quickly.


From your report, the Mets were fools in this whole process. Why the hell were they relying on the reports of the Bureau instead of their own evaluators? The Bureau has no incentive to be accurate with their assessments. If they had perused Baseball America or even this website, they would have heard whispers that Beato was considered 1st-round talent. I'm sure that the Bureau is feeling really bad about getting this one wrong. I'm sure the Orioles are sending their heartfelt apologies too.

And why are the Mets trying to screw a kid out of his money? If they were willing to pay 1 million, and if that what they thought Beato was worth, then why set an artificial barrier recommended by outsiders? I mean, are the Mets going to ask Selig how much he thinks D-Mat is worth? Are the Mets going to ask the Bureau how much they should resign Glavine for?

I'm glad that the kid got his money. Fortunately, the early numbers doesn't look like he's going to be a prime prospect - but you never know about a kid who can throw in the mid 90's. And it's not as if the Mets 2006 draft class looks particularly strong. The Mets were fools in screwing this up.

If they had perused Baseball America or even this website, they would have heard whispers that Beato was considered 1st-round talent.

Well...

Were there whispers that Beato might go higher? Yes, there were - there were a couple of people who thought that a team like Boston or the Yankees might take a shot with a pick in the 20s. But I think that, to the extent that there was a consensus, the consensus was that Beato would be picked in the 40-45 range, where the slot money was right in line with the MLB recommendation. Virtually every pre-draft assessment I saw put Beato right there.

And why are the Mets trying to screw a kid out of his money? If they were willing to pay 1 million, and if that what they thought Beato was worth, then why set an artificial barrier recommended by outsiders?

I don't really know what was going on behind the scenes. All that I really know is that the Mets chose - in this case - not to go beyond the major league recommendation, and they wound up getting screwed because the MLB recommendation wound up being below the player's actual market value (as defined by where he was actually selected in 2006). The Mets were willing to pay, from what I can tell, no more than what they felt Beato's true market value actually was, and the data from which they drew that conclusion led almost every other interpreter to the same conclusion. It's unfortunate for the Mets that the Orioles jumped in a lot earlier than most people expected, but if the Mets really felt strongly before the draft that Beato was worth that slot value, they should have just paid it. They didn't go along with the MLB recommendation, as far as I can tell, anyway, under duress.

-- MWE

I'm not sure what happened but I'm pretty sure it was Trachsel's fault.

It's unfortunate for the Mets that the Orioles jumped in a lot earlier than most people expected, but if the Mets really felt strongly before the draft that Beato was worth that slot value

I guess what I was implying there was - why is it unfortunate for the Mets that the Orioles thought he had a million dollar arm. I mean, should Minaya and Wilpon go to bed smiling because a kid ends up signing for $400 K when he turned down the Mets' 800K offer? Either you think the kid is worth the money or you don't, it's foolish to feel better if the kid ends up getting drafted lower.

what is an extra half a million to a team like the mets? one year of jose lima? please.

Or Kevin "the White Jose Lima" Jarvis. Oh wait, that was Josh the Genius Byrnes. My bad.

From everything I read prior to the draft, MLB heavily leaned on the Mets not to go above-slot on Beato. IIRC, they leaned heavily on all teams’ DFE’s – perhaps as a pre-cursor to scrapping the whole thing in the new CBA.

The Mets were furious afterwards not because Beato went higher than projected and therefore received more than the MLB reco money - they were furious because they were prepared to pay the kid (news sources had them going as high as 1.2) but was actively discouraged from doing so by Bud, and then watched as other teams basically ignored slot recommendations without consequence.

I'll take lucky 13.

You had it right, just with the digits reversed.

-- MWE

they were furious because they were prepared to pay the kid (news sources had them going as high as 1.2) but was actively discouraged from doing so by Bud, and then watched as other teams basically ignored slot recommendations without consequence.

Well, what was Bud going to do? Three teams, basically, ignored slot: the Yankees, the Red Sox, and the Tigers, and Bud had zippo leverage to exert on those teams - although especially in the case of the first two, MLB did everything they could do, especially in the Kennedy situation.

If the Mets had been bound and determined to pay Beato $1.2 million, they would have done so, Bud be darned to heck - and there's no question that Bud would have relented, albeit grudgingly as he did in the Kennedy/Chamberlain/Bard cases. They chose to let themselves be bound by MLB's recommendation, largely because they didn't think Beato would be in a position to get more after 2006. That was their decision, not Bud's, and it was based on the best info they had at the time.

-- MWE

Beato didn't fall to the 17th round in '05 because of signability concerns, but because he was coming off TJ surgery. He recovered nicely in '06, but the analysis on him had him going late supplemental/early 2nd round, which would have put his slot money at about what MLB recommended to the Mets - the slot money for the late supplemental round picks was between $750K and $850K, although the Yankees went above slot for Chamberlain (no shock there).

I think my point still stands, however. Teams with higher payrolls should gamble on guys who fall down due to signability OR injury concerns, and then should actually sign them. I don't think that the Angels are regretting signing Adenhart, for example. I understand some teams are sticklers for slot money, but I personally think that is a stupid decision. If there isn't a rule that prohibits you from going above slot money, and if you have the money to afford to go above slot money, you'd be dumb not to do it.

FWIW, the Diamondbacks did go above slot for Anderson, their second-rounder, and will also go above slot if/when they sign Scherzer.

See, my point exactly. The Dbacks, first under Rizzo and now under Byrnes, have always put a premium on talent over bonus money. For a team with a smaller payroll like AZ (60m payroll going into next year, but $12m tied up with Russ Ortiz and Shawn Green), high impact amateur players are critically important. Drew (and Jered Weaver, for that matter) was worth the extra cash. Matt Bush... well, not so much.

Question for Orioles' fans, what do you think of Hayden Penn? Is he going to stick next year?

If the Mets had been bound and determined to pay Beato $1.2 million, they would have done so, Bud be darned to heck - and there's no question that Bud would have relented, albeit grudgingly as he did in the Kennedy/Chamberlain/Bard cases. They chose to let themselves be bound by MLB's recommendation, largely because they didn't think Beato would be in a position to get more after 2006. That was their decision, not Bud's, and it was based on the best info they had at the time.

We're not actually arguing on opposite sides. The Mets are fools for thinking Selig had any potency to keep everyone in check. This isn't collective bargaining against the players, it's a process by which young players are selected for the different organizations. That means it's a *competition* between the organizations. To not understand such a fundamental point. Argh. If the Mets are furious, they should be looking in the mirror. It reminds me of the incompetence during the Duquette era, when because they didn't have the courage to sign Vlad Guerrero, they instead tried to insinuate about his medical future to protect their behinds. Augh, let's be done with the Beato topic. The Mets screwed up big-time.

On better news, Fernando went 2-4 today, 2 2Bs and a BB. He's now figuring out advanced level minor league pitching. He is *the* crown jewel of the Mets minor league system.

This kid Eric Patterson looks really good. 2Bman in the Cubs organization. Maybe Omar can pry him away from Hendry?

Buddha: beats me.

I think he'll get a chance to win a rotation spot in the spring unless they make some major pitching acquisitions this winter. Hopefully his post-callup performance this year is due to rookie jitters and not indicative of his true ability.

Were he eligible for this list he'd have to be 2 or 3. I'm not sure if BA would jump Erbe over him just yet - that would have been an interesting question for the live chat.

Yankees top 10:

(ED: List and link removed, in the header. MWE)

I think Kennedy over Clippard is a joke. Both have mediocre fastballs with plus command and good secondary stuff, but Clippard has shown he can get AA hitters out while Kennedy hasn't even thrown an inning in A ball.

I'd put Jackson, Duncan, and Montero over Kennedy, Cox, and Gardner (who I think is a 4th OFer at best), too. Duncan's been disappointing, but when he was healthy this year he mashed; of course with back problems you have to worry if he'll ever be healthy.

Betances and Chamberlain have been amazing. I know Delin had a poor senior year, but his stuff was back after getting drafted and his command and mechanics were a lot better than expected -- not that they're anywhere near perfect of course. Chamberlain has really, really impressed scouts a lot in the HWL with his stuff and command, and I'm hopeful that the Yankees can give him a good workout to keep him in shape and hopefully healthy.

The Mets are fools for thinking Selig had any potency to keep everyone in check.

Well, it's not a matter, really, of "keeping everyone in check." Couldn't it just be that the Orioles thought Beato was better than the consensus, and invested a higher draft pick (and hence higher bonus money)? If the Orioles made a mistake, then they'll have wasted that money. If they were smarter than the consensus, then they got a bargain.

We won't know if the Mets screwed up big-time until we see what becomes of Pedro Beato, will we?

You guys (like Kyle) who are quicker than I am should feel free to post comments on the new top 10s in the thread as they come up on the BA site, but please don't cut-and-paste the lists from the Web site into the thread; I'll put links and the #1s in the header.

I can't see putting Garcia over Clippard at this stage; Garcia has to prove that he can stay healthy for a full season. Garcia's one of the guys who I think will be helped by the Rule 5 change, because it gives him that extra year to make up for the lost time from '05 and '06. Like Kyle, I also think Kennedy has to be behind Clippard at this stage, although I can see the upside argument for Kennedy.

I'm not at all sold on Jackson, although I think he's more likely to contribute something at the major league level than Gardner - I don't see either one of them being much more than a 5th OF type at this stage.

-- MWE

Sorry about that Mike, I thought the list would be alright since it's free content.

I wouldn't put Garcia over Clippard either, but I love Garcia's upside. There have been questions about his makeup though, and you have to wonder if he's a guy that will work hard enough to harness his potential and keep himself healthy.

Jackson isn't that exciting yet, but IIRC, this was also his first year focusing just on baseball. He and Gardner share the biggest problem, IMO: too many strikeouts. I wouldn't worry about either if they were power hitters, but Gardner is a Juan Pierre type and Jackson's power potential is probably a league average IsoP at best or so. I just can't see any way either can make up for that on non-SO PA.

I am as certain as I can be that Selig is not penalizing teams financially for paying above slot. The slotting system is unofficial because it hasn't been collectively bargained - that's why the slot numbers are couched as "recommendations".

Remember - Selig has a large amount of discretionary funds under his control to divvy out, as well as great say in things like the awarding of all star games, etc. There aren't fines, per se - but teams that go against the slotting too aggressively can be penalized in indirect ways.

but teams that go against the slotting too aggressively can be penalized in indirect ways.

I'd imagine that those teams that are doing so don't get much, if any, of that discretionary money as it is, so I'm not sure that threat exists. I can't see how the Yankees, for example, ever got a cent back from Selig.

As Sam pointed out - the Mets were trying to help the slotting program work, because it would save them money in the long run. For most teams the discretionary money is the stick to motivate them.

Are the Mets hoping to get an ASG anytime soon? The commissioner's office controls that totally.

Sorry about that Mike, I thought the list would be alright since it's free content.

No, I wasn't actually thinking about that - more that it's easier to find links when they're in the header of the article rather than in the body of comments, and I do want people to RTFA most of the time.

I have an original article on "sleeper prospects" that Mister High Standards asked me about in one of the WS chats - basically guys who aren't highly rated but who have a chance to contribute something in the majors, a la Cano or Wang - which I'm going to try to finish this weekend. The Yankees are one of the hardest organizations in which to find a sleeper prospect.

I noticed, by the way, that the Yankees fired Bill Masse, their AA manager, and promoted AA pitching coach Dave Eiland to AAA to replace Neil Allen, who voluntarily resigned. They haven't yet hired a replacement, and they also need someone at Charleston as well. Masse did an outstanding job in rallying Trenton from a horrible start to a division title, but he apparently got into some sort of fight with minor league pitching coordinator Nardi Contreras, who is one of Cashman's favorites.

-- MWE

On sleepers, Garcia would be one if he wasn't ranked so highly. Phenomenal stuff, but has all the issues you and I have mentioned to go along with so-so control.

Masse also cared a lot more about winning than developing the players, and openly complained about the limits put on Hughes. I hadn't heard about fighting with Contreras, but it doesn't surprise me as I'm sure Contreras had a lot of say on Hughes' workload.

Are the Mets hoping to get an ASG anytime soon? The commissioner's office controls that totally.

They probably are hoping to get one - there hasn't been an ASG in New York since 1977, and Shea hasn't hosted one since 1964 - but they have to be in line behind Arizona, San Diego, St. Louis, and maybe Washington (if they get their new park when scheduled) in the NL, and behind Texas in the AL. Bud prefers to put the game into the new parks; the last "old park" to have one was Fenway in 1999. 2008 will be in an AL park, I'm sure, and I can't imagine Bud jumping Shea ahead of Chase or Petco.

-- MWE

Oh yeah - and Cincinnati, too.

-- MWE

2008 will be in an AL park, I'm sure, and I can't imagine Bud jumping Shea ahead of Chase or Petco.

It's most likely going to be Yankee Stadium.

General comments from the chat (feel free to let me know if I'm saying too much):

Montero disappointed in workouts and Manuel wonders if it's a part of why Lin Garrett was fired.

Jackson not as athletic as thought, gives him a Juan Encarnacion comp.

Farm system deepest it's been since 90's, hitters not close to par obviously, but pitching strong.

Chamberlain has been awesome and sitting around 95 and getting it up to 97.

Well, it's not a matter, really, of "keeping everyone in check." Couldn't it just be that the Orioles thought Beato was better than the consensus, and invested a higher draft pick (and hence higher bonus money)? If the Orioles made a mistake, then they'll have wasted that money. If they were smarter than the consensus, then they got a bargain.

We won't know if the Mets screwed up big-time until we see what becomes of Pedro Beato, will we?

Yes, but as Mike reports, the Mets *were* willing to pay Beato 1M, but didn't do so because they didn't want to upset the salary structure. If you read what Mike's reporting, this salary structure was based on an independent assessment of the slotting of Beato. The Bureau *was* wrong, as there were teams who were willing to pay Beato 1M as well.

So the Mets knew they wanted the player at the given price, but didn't do so because they were told they would be disrupting some projection system from higher up.

It has nothing to do with Beato's potential, which is impossible for any of us to project with any certainty at this stage. It has everything to do with the Mets losing out on a young talent that they *were* willing to pay because they wanted to conform to some salary structure designed by a bureaucracy which had *zero* penalty for getting it wrong. That's idiotic, and since Wilpon is usually brighter than this, suicidal in the business sense.

The Bureau *was* wrong, as there were teams who were willing to pay Beato 1M as well.

One team, anyway (which is all it took).

As I said, though, the Bureau's assessment was not all that dissimilar from independent assessments of the draft. I don't remember seeing one mock draft that had Beato higher than the bottom of the supplemental round.

-- MWE

One team, anyway (which is all it took).

As I said, though, the Bureau's assessment was not all that dissimilar from independent assessments of the draft. I don't remember seeing one mock draft that had Beato higher than the bottom of the supplemental round.


Well for the case of Beato, it was more the issue of the money than draft position. It's almost impossible nowadays to use draft position as a way of reviewing how teams ranked the prospects, as signability confounds the rank order as well.

Well for the case of Beato, it was more the issue of the money than draft position.

The draft position determines the money, more or less - that's what slotting is all about.

-- MWE

The draft position determines the money, more or less - that's what slotting is all about.

Yes, I know that's what the Bureau might be basing their projections on.

What I meant is that's not how the Mets should be interpreting the situation. What the Mets should have been asking themselves instead was - what is the likelihood that other teams *would* be willing to pay Beato given what was known of him at the time.

What the Mets should have been asking themselves instead was - what is the likelihood that other teams *would* be willing to pay Beato given what was known of him at the time.

I think the answer there is that "what other teams would be willing to pay is based on where he likely would have slotted in the draft". Most teams are unwilling to pay anything significantly over slot.

-- MWE

Chamberlain has been awesome and sitting around 95 and getting it up to 97.

From the chat and from the article and from people with access with scouts it seems it's actually 94-97 and touching 99. Yowza.

The Yankee farm system looks better, but nothing to get excited about. More than half the names in the top 10 are from last year's draft.
Will we see both Hughes and Clippard up next year?
Incidentally how did BA rank Wang when he was coming through the ranks?

Going through the article, best power hitter : shelly duncan? Weird name if it is not a misprint.

The Yankees had a terrific draft, so that should be expected.

I would expect that both Hughes and Clippard get some amount of big league time next year.

Wang was highly ranked until he hurt himself at which point he came in around 10th prior to his rookie season.

thanks for the info

The Yankees had a terrific draft, so that should be expected.

What is the definition of a terrific draft 6 months after it has been held? All it is saying is lookie, we got some live arms now. Esp the yankee draft, where all the prospects in the top 10 are pitchers.
I read this story before..ask the Cubs, ask the Braves. And none of them are even Mark Prior like picks. Everyone has some issue or the other.
As I see it, this is just masturbation with small sample based projections..

oops, pun not intended..

Swan - I believe BA rated the Yankees draft 2nd overall... it's prospecting is always more art than science imho.

it's prospecting is always more art than science

So's everyone's.

-- MWE

Hm, BA is projecting Cabrera as the #3 and Penn as the #4 starters....it could be another long year in Baltimore.

Could be not, though, too. The potential variance on Cabrera has to be HUGE.

OK; Don't know where to post this, so this thread sounds good. Found this nugget in Pete Abraham's latest blog

2006 draft pick Mark Melancon recently had elbow surgery and will be out for a year. Cashman said they had a feeling this would happen but took him anyway in the ninth round based on his potential.

Sometimes gambles don't payoff. Can Melancon be as effective as he was in college after TJ?

I don't know if the TJ surgery will be the problem. The apparent issue seems to be his delivery, which is violent, and has worried teams since before the draft. Assuming that this delivery is the cause of his plus stuff, revamping it might negatively impact his overall effectiveness. So the Yankees will need to weigh the pros and cons of keeping him with his current stuff, while maintaining a very high risk for repeated arm injuries.

mid to low round picks are good places to take risk at. Pitchers have a history of coming strongly after TJ, so if it works out, its groovy, otherwise a low sunk cost

Melancon got more than a low round bonus, though.

That said - I think he's a good risk. He was a *tremendous* pitcher in college with plus stuff and TJ surgery has a pretty good success rate. TempleUSox, per usual, hit the nail on the head in #66.

TempleU - Good stuff. Are we sure this is a case where the stuff is a byproduct of the delivery? If it is, and his stuff is so electric, wouldnt a re-weorked delivery that gives him say 85% of his stuff back be pretty good too?

Red Sox will be up sometime today: I'll try to get the link up quickly, because I know there will be a lot of interest there. But don't let that stop you from talking amongst yourself. Jim Callis will be doing the chat.

-- MWE

Except for Pedroia, everyone on the list was drafted in 05 or 06. And Pedroia and Hanson are the only two reasonably expected to contribute in 2007, with Ellsbury having an outside chance to be a factor in 2008.

The Sox will be spending a lotta cash on free agents this offseason... unless they trade some of their 2005 draftees for major league ready players.

I believe Manuel stated in his chat he'd rank the AL East systems Tampa Bay > New York > Boston > Baltimore > Toronto.

I'll be interested in seeing what BA thinks about Buchholz and Bowden. I'm a big fan of Ellsbury, but I'd like to learn more about those guys. I'm kind of surprised Bard is that high, though, as Callis didn't seem to be a big fan based on comments in chats throughout the year.

The big thing I notice about the Sox list is that there's no clear #1 prospect. Yes, Ellsbury is the best prospect in the system, but he's not way ahead of Buchholz, who is certainly not way ahead of Bowden, etc... There's a bit of a gap there then between Bowden and Bard, since Bard hasn't thrown a pro pitch yet, but even that gap isn't massive. It's like that down the list until Johnson and Place, who are both well behind everyone else.

Probably the most interesting thing here is Bryce Cox ahead of Craig Hansen. As one of the biggest Hansen boosters around, knowing that that's more about Hansen than about Cox hurts. They've got a lot in common, so seeing Cox ahead of Hansen strikes me as a bit of the devil you don't know over the devil you do. They're both likely to face similar issues going forward.

I'm also a bit surprised that Johnson made the list ahead of Justin Masterson - who has comperable stuff, and better numbers.

At this point, the gap between Boston and New York is pretty damn big the rankings that Manuel suggested.

Pedroia 6th? I thought he was the next coming of Ozzie Smith, but with Wade Boggs batting stats.

I've been misled.

I'll be interested in seeing what BA thinks about Buchholz and Bowden.

Buchholz: possible #1 starter
Bowden: Sox see him as a #2/#3 starter

Personally, I see both as middle-of-the-rotation guys. Which, if you read Marchman's article, shouldn't be considered a negative.

-- MWE

I'm also a bit surprised that Johnson made the list ahead of Justin Masterson - who has comperable stuff, and better numbers.

The fact that Johnson is left-handed probably has something to do with it.

The BA report on Johnson suggests that he might be in high-A next year, skipping Greenville. I think that would be a mistake, given that the Red Sox are now in the Cal League. If anything, I'd like to see him start in Greenville and, if he dominates there, skip him to AA.

It will be interesting to see whether having the high-A franchise in Lancaster instead of Wilmington changes Boston's thinking about their pitching prospects.

-- MWE

It will be interesting to see whether having the high-A franchise in Lancaster instead of Wilmington changes Boston's thinking about their pitching prospects.

Should it?

Callis chat:

Kottaras, Masterson, and Brandon Moss were #11-13.

Matsuzaka would be an easy #1 (yes, BA would consider him to be a "prospect" if he were to sign with Boston, since he has no "major league" experience).

Mike Rozier's stock has plummeted, to the point where he's out of the top 30. He's come to camp out of shape for two straight years, and his stuff just hasn't been what Boston expected. Gabbard, Hottovy, and Pauley also missed the top 30, and Lowrie was right at the bottom.

Francoeur is a good comp for Place.

Betances, #3 on the Yankee list, probably would have been #6 on this one.

Ty Weeden's progress in instructional league was encouraging. He's more agile than the Red Sox anticipated, and he may be able to stay behind the plate.

The comments on David Murphy were all over the map; some folks think he can play CF and will eventually hit for power, others say the opposite. Callis thinks he'll probably wind up at a 4th OF.

Hansen throws harder than Cox, but Cox's fastball is harder to hit, and his slider is outstanding, while Hansen's still trying to get the one he had in college back.

-- MWE

Lancaster is a launching pad and punishes pitchers. Bed&Breakfast;are up for a rude surprise if they end up there.

Should it?

Well, the team's affiliation is moving from one of the best pitcher's environments in the minors to one of the best hitter's environments in the minors. One of the implications of that is that pitchers will usually have to throw more pitches in more stressful situations - which makes it harder to handle pitchers with care. LA, for one, has sent several pitchers to AA Jacksonville instead of AAA Las Vegas over the past couple of years precisely so that they could avoid the hazards of working in a high-octane hitting environment.

I don't know that Boston *should* do anything differently, but Lancaster is much more hitter-friendly than any affiliate they've had for the past couple of years, and they might be inclined to take that into consideration when assigning pitchers.

-- MWE

Callis writes:

Cox' slider is the best I've ever seen in person.

Does he mean that his slider at the end of the year was the best he'd seen from Cox in person, or in general among any pitcher?

I'm a little surprised Jonathan Egan hasn't gottena little more love. he came on really strong.

I believe Manuel stated in his chat he'd rank the AL East systems Tampa Bay > New York > Boston > Baltimore > Toronto.

The BA article lists Boston's draft as #2 in 2005 and #1 in 2006. That Boston would have the best combined drafts over the past 2 years begs the question how Manuel could rank NY ahead of Boston.

Because the talent exhisting in the systems and international signings have developed better.

I think its tough to rank Sox ahead when Tabata and Hughes are better than anything in the SOx system right now.

I'm not too worried about the Cal League having an adverse effect on Red Sox pitching prospects. Every year, most pitchers in that league get blasted to smithereens, but that correlates well to the dearth of good pitching in the big leagues. If you can pitch well in the cal league, and you have the right combination of age and stuff, then I think it goes a long way to showing how legitimate you are. I think the league helps expose the true prospects from the fakes.

Pitchers like Pedro Martinez, Jake Peavy, Matt Cain, Felix Hernandez all put up fantastic numbers across the board in their Cal League days. If Buchholz or Bowden can dominate next year, then that will be really exciting. If not, I just hope they keep a reasonable hits/9 number and don't give up too many homers. That will leave me hopeful that at least they didn't too many pitches fat.

That Boston would have the best combined drafts over the past 2 years begs the question how Manuel could rank NY ahead of Boston.

Basically, the issue is that trading the top two prospects in the Yankee system for the top five in the Red Sox system would probably be unfair to the Yankees.

I'd probably combine the rankings as such:

1. Hughes
2. Tabata
3. Ellsbury
4. Buchholz
5. Bowden
6. Bard
7. Anderson
8. Pedroia
9. Betances
10. Chamberlain
11. Bryce Cox
12. Hansen
13. Kennedy
14. Garcia
15. Clippard
16. Cox
17. Johnson
18. Place
19. Melancon
20. Gardner

This is keeping internal consistency of course.

I'd take Betances and Chamberlain over Bard, but I'd probably take Anderson over both of them. I wonder where Sanchez would go now? I could see as high as 4th, but maybe more like 5th or 6th.

*And I know you were being consistent, I should have clarified I disagree with BA there, not you.

I'd lean toward 3rd or 4th. I don't see a case for Bowden being better.

Buchholz: possible #1 starter
Bowden: Sox see him as a #2/#3 starter

I don't know how you can, at this point, really eliminate Bowden as a possible #1. He's 19 and pitched well in A ball--about as well as an older Buccholz did. At that age, I'd expect a wider range of possibilities than 2-3.

Pedroia being #6 is no surprise. He's not toolsy, so he loses a lot of points there. He's also been hurt and then struggled at AAA initially. Still a good-looking player to me.

Basically, the issue is that trading the top two prospects in the Yankee system for the top five in the Red Sox system would probably be unfair to the Yankees.

That's crazy. No way are 2 prospects worth more than 5.

I'd take Betances and Chamberlain over Bard,

That's just crazy, too. Bard has much better stuff than the both of them combined. Bard can consistently nail 98 on the real gun.

Lancaster is a launching pad and punishes pitchers. Bed&Breakfast;are up for a rude surprise if they end up there.

Why? All pitching in a launching pad does is create the illusion of inferior pitching. The guys they will be pitching against will be facing the same problems.

Why? All pitching in a launching pad does is create the illusion of inferior pitching.

And it hinders their development. The goal of the minors isn't really to produce stats that you can salivate over; it's to allow pitchers and hitters to develop. Lancaster's environment makes it really tough--and really fks up young pitchers' confidence.

No way are 2 prospects worth more than 5.

Oh, that's not true at all. You give me two elite, Grade A prospects (especially if they are close to major league ready, which I think is true in Hughes's case though obviously not Tabata's), and I'd definitely take them over five good prospects. I don't know enough about the Sox prospects involved here to say whether they fit that bill, but if I have two or three crown jewels like Hughes and Tabata, I'm pretty inclined not to give them up. There's a lot to be said for depth in the system -- it's great for trading, and it helps when the prospects fall by the wayside, as they inevitably do -- but superstar ceilings are the things on which great teams can actually be built.

I don't know how you can, at this point, really eliminate Bowden as a possible #1. He's 19 and pitched well in A ball--about as well as an older Buccholz did. At that age, I'd expect a wider range of possibilities than 2-3.

I would guess the projection has as much do with stuff as with performance.

I don't know how you can, at this point, really eliminate Bowden as a possible #1. He's 19 and pitched well in A ball--about as well as an older Buccholz did. At that age, I'd expect a wider range of possibilities than 2-3.

The wider range you seek is implied - #2-3 or unpacking boxes at UPS because he blew out his elbow at an age younger than Buchholz currently is.

Ok, maybe that wasn't the wider range you were seeking.

i'd definitely take the yanks top 2 over the sox top 5.

And it hinders their development.

No it doesn't. Where did you ever hear such silly idea?

In fact, you could make the case it enhances development, by forcing pitchers to make adaptations and adjustments to counter adverse pitching environments.

Oh, that's not true at all. You give me two elite, Grade A prospects (especially if they are close to major league ready, which I think is true in Hughes's case though obviously not Tabata's), and I'd definitely take them over five good prospects.

If you said this after the fact, I would agree with you. But we are talking before the fact here. Hughes could blow his arm out next April and then what would you be left with? Tabata is a baby and who knows what he is going to do? We already know that Ellsbury can throw major league leather and hit AA pitching with authority. Ellsbury alone has a much better chance to be a productive major league player than Tabata, even before you start to throw in all those other players. It's just crazy to put all you eggs in one (or rather, two) basket like that.

In fact, you could make the case it enhances development, by forcing pitchers to make adaptations and adjustments to counter adverse pitching environments.

Yes, you could. Except that it's rarely been the case for the majority of AZ's pitching prospects. But I'm sure that's because AZ's never had pitchers of the caliber of Bed&Breakfast;.

In fact, last year AZ had its more promising starting pitchers skip high A altogether and moved them to AA Owings (who was briefly a reliever in high A in 05 tho), Ohlendorf, Jackson. Greg Smith was taken out of Lancaster pretty quickly as well.

In fact, I suspect that over the next years we'll see the Dbacks send their top pitchers from low A South Bend directly to AA Mobile (I suspect Matt Torra will end up there, for sure). I doubt there's any value to sending top pitchers to the CAL league.

brad penny had a very nice season in the cal league back in the day.