Wow, I didn't expect B's for Lubanski and Bianchi, i'm still a bit skeptical on them.

Ditto, Lubanski in particular. I'd like to see a little more stability before I'm sold.

Anyone seen Luanski play?

He got crucified in a scouting report I read a few years back, said some brutalstuff.
But IIRC royalscorner and scout.com like him and BA is mixed.

Two issues with these rankings:

1. I don't really see that many similarities between Butler and Martinez. Martinez was never a highly regarded prospect, and he didn't become a MLB regular until he was 27 years old. He only had one season where he hit more than 30 HR; based on the power Butler has already displayed as a 19/20 year old, I would bet my life savings that he will hit for more power than Martinez.

If we're going by ceilings, I think Manny Ramirez is a much better comp for Butler. They were both highly regarded prospects coming out of HS, they both flew through the minor league system without struggling at any spot, and they have similar skill sets: great plate discipline, hit for power at an early age, "old man" tools that make scouts doubt their fielding abilities.

2. I still don't get the doubts about Lubanski. He has now had two big seasons in a row, yet people continue to ignore him. An .844 OPS as a 21 year old in AA is nothing to blow off, especially when he drastically improved his plate discipline from his Cal League season (72 BB compared to 38 BB in essentially the same number of ABs). Plus, it's not like he has come out of nowhere to put up these numbers; he was the #5 overall pick in 03 and was regarded as the best athlete in the class (was also the fastest).

Personally, I would have given Lubanski a B+ grade based on what Sickels has handed out. Why do guys like Jacob Ellsbury, Ian Stewart, Bill Rowell, and Eric Campbell deserve B+ grades, but Lubanski gets saddled with a B? Seems like a case of "shiny new thing" syndrome to me.

And yes, I have seen Lubanski play, and I think he will be a very solid player at the big league level.

I think Bianchi is way overhyped. He hasn't done much of anything yet except get hurt.

I think the Lubanski doubt is because he starts out so poorly every year, only to go on a tear in the second half. I'm not even sure why that would be a bad thing, seems like its him adjusting to the new level. I think he's going to be the shiznit.

I really don't expect anyone 12-20 to make the big leagues unless Erik Cordier ever gets healthy. The rest don't really excite me - Nicoll and Rosa have put up the best numbers.

"He has now had two big seasons in a row..."

2005 wasn't that big, once you consider his park/league. High Desert is probably the single best hitters' park in organized ball, and Lubanski's .903 OPS there was only the seventh-best figure among hitters with 100+ AB. Once seen in that light, the grade looks better as a "let's see if he can repeat it" kind of thing.

Sickels may also be clipping him a bit on defense, since Lubanski looks like a corner guy at this point while the other guys you mention are all project to have more defensive value as either a 3B or in Ellsbury's case a CF.

Does Bianchi at least have any offensive potential? Seems like it's been a long while since we've had a shortstop with a bat (Gagne maybe?).

Berroa in 2003.

Bianchi only has some 150 professional at bats, and he's been oustanding in them, but its only 150 at bats. I don't even think Bianchi projects as a shortstop, I think they plan to move him to 2B.

2005 wasn't that big, once you consider his park/league. High Desert is probably the single best hitters' park in organized ball, and Lubanski's .903 OPS there was only the seventh-best figure among hitters with 100+ AB. Once seen in that light, the grade looks better as a "let's see if he can repeat it" kind of thing.

900+ OPS as a 20 year old is solid for any league, and should at least be considered a "good" season. I can't find his splits for 05, but I seem to remember him having fairly similar home/road numbers.

Even if they view him as a corner OF instead of a CF, I don't believe his value should drop off that much. He has displayed more power over the past two seasons than was expected when he was drafted, and his body type will allow him to easily add more "good" weight as he matures.

According to Szym, High Desert's park factor last year was 1.28 for runs (1.36 for HR, 0.78 for Ks, etc.). That's going to goose the hell out of anyone's stat line.

It's not a bad season by any means (lots of XBH of all kinds), but his numbers that year were a lot closer to Kila Kaaihue's than they were to Billy Butler's. In particular, that K rate was a concern once you factor in park effects.

900+ OPS as a 20 year old is solid for any league, and should at least be considered a "good" season.

The league hit .286/.351/.452 and he was in one of the, if not the, best hitter's park in that league- I had him as the 10th best hitting 20 year old in A ball in 2005 (100+ abs)
those better (using park and league adjusted erp/27 outs)were:
Wood, Brandon
Restko, J.T.
Kemp, Matt
Saltalamacchia, Jarrod
Moses, Matthew
Hoffmann, Jamie
Granadillo, Tony
Abreu, Tony
Rodriguez, Sean

Actually the curve flattens out at # 9: Rodriguez- there's very little separating him at #9, Lubanski at #10 and Hector made at #20. Lubanski was closer to Made than he is to Moses or Hoffman. Milledge shoots well above Lubanski if you take his AA stats into account.

Lubanski, Chris
Herrera, Javier
Milledge, Lastings
Stewart, Ian
Harvey, Ryan
Mercado, Orlando
Petit, Gregorio
Cumberland, Shaun
Spears, Nate
Baez, Edgardo
Made, Hector

On the other hand among AL hitting pros[pect5s who played in A-AAA last year I have them ranked like this:

Alex Gordon
Cameron Maybin
Sean Rodriguez
Reid Brignac
Billy Butler
Erik Lis
Josh Fields
Chris Lubanski
Brandon Wood
Aaron Cunningham

It's not a bad season by any means (lots of XBH of all kinds), but his numbers that year were a lot closer to Kila Kaaihue's than they were to Billy Butler's. In particular, that K rate was a concern once you factor in park effects.

And Kila Kaaihue completely collapsed in AA this year, while Lubanski improved in almost all aspects, so i'm not sure what point you're attempting to make.

If a higher level is considered a better indicator, Lubanski was much closer to Butler in AA than he was in High A.

"And Kila Kaaihue completely collapsed in AA this year, while Lubanski improved in almost all aspects, so i'm not sure what point you're attempting to make."

That a truly elite prospect would put up a line like Butler's, while the kind of guy who might cut it and might not (like Lubanski or Kaaihue) would be around a .900.

Okay....and that was in 2005. What about this past season?

I'm not sure how you can view Lubanski, who is coming off an .844 OPS in his first AA season at 21 years old, as a guy who "might not cut it" at the MLB level. So far his resume is right in line with where it should be, and certainly comparable with the top 50-75 prospects in baseball.

Going back and forth about whether Lubanski's 05 season was "good" or simply "average" is swaying off course.

That a truly elite prospect would put up a line like Butler's, while the kind of guy who might cut it and might not (like Lubanski or Kaaihue) would be around a .900.

Huh? Either you're as good as Butler, or you're a flop? That seems like an awfully high standard.

I was willing to put 2005 in as a fluke year, and certainly when he flopped in the first half of 2006 in AA, I was even more convinced. But he absolutely tore up the Texas League the second half, giving him overall very respectable numbers for a 21 year old, and drastically improving his BB-K ratio at a higher level.

I don't think he's a "truly elite" prospect I guess, but I think he's got a very good chance of sticking in the big leagues as a regular for quite some time, which for the Royals, is awfully hard to come by.

"Going back and forth about whether Lubanski's 05 season was "good" or simply "average" is swaying off course."

No, it's relevant in determining his ranking. 2006 was a very good season... but it's the first season of that kind in Lubanski's career (since 2005 doesn't really count for the reasons I've described). As such, I think Sickels is right to be a little bit skeptical about him, and that's reflected in the B-ranking. You rank a guy with a track record of excellence ahead of a guy who might be a bit more of a fluke.

If he does it again in '07, he'll move up to B+/A- territory.

"Huh? Either you're as good as Butler, or you're a flop? That seems like an awfully high standard."

No, but if you're significantly lower than Butler, you aren't a top-drawer prospect. You're a guy who might project as a starter, but who probably won't be a star, and there's a slight-but-real chance that you won't make it at all.

A guy with a B+ is the kind of guy where if you fell into a coma today and woke back up in five years, you'd be flat-out shocked if he weren't at least a good-quality regular. Lubanski's a good prospect, worth having, but not up to that standard.

To go the other way for a bit, the one guy on the list who I DO think is a bit under-graded is Chris Nicoll, for the same reason. He went right after people after his promotion to High Desert, and I think that argues well for his chances as a starter.

On Alex Gordon:

it would be a stunning development if Gordon isn’t the starting third baseman when the Royals open the season April 2 against Boston at Kauffman Stadium.

it would be a stunning development if Gordon isn’t the starting third baseman when the Royals open the season April 2 against Boston at Kauffman Stadium.
Page 1 of 1 pages

Buddy Bell had an interview today on local sports talk and said pretty much that Alex Gordon will be given every opportunity to earn the starting 3B job on opening day. Sorry Omaha fans.

Teahen to left, then?

No, it's relevant in determining his ranking. 2006 was a very good season... but it's the first season of that kind in Lubanski's career (since 2005 doesn't really count for the reasons I've described). As such, I think Sickels is right to be a little bit skeptical about him, and that's reflected in the B-ranking. You rank a guy with a track record of excellence ahead of a guy who might be a bit more of a fluke.

Which brings me back to my initial point: why do guys such as Ellsbury, Stewart, Rowell, Campbell, and Sweeney get plenty of respect/attention in prospect circles, yet Lubanski gets no love? None of these players can trump Lubanksi's "one good season", and a few of them have yet to have anything comparable to a breakout season.

Which brings me back to my initial point: why do guys such as Ellsbury, Stewart, Rowell, Campbell, and Sweeney get plenty of respect/attention in prospect circles, yet Lubanski gets no love? None of these players can trump Lubanksi's "one good season", and a few of them have yet to have anything comparable to a breakout season.

A "B" from Sickels is high praise.

"why do guys such as Ellsbury, Stewart, Rowell, Campbell, and Sweeney get plenty of respect/attention in prospect circles, yet Lubanski gets no love?"

Ellsbury is regarded as one of the better defensive CFs in the minors, which gives his bat a lot more marginal value relative to position than Lubanski's.

Stewart wasn't up to Lubanski's standard last year, but his '05 was stronger, and his '04 and '03 were top-drawer. As such, his '06 is potentially viewed as a bit of an off-year within context of his career (and even an "off year" like that one was stronger than Lubanski's '04).

Rowell has only played one season, but he was uniformly excellent in it. As such, the hype seems warranted.

Campbell started slowly in rookie ball, but his '05 and '06 were both excellent. The '06 season is another good example of why park and league context matter: Rome is a strong pitcher's park, and the Sally League in general is death on power. A guy who can put up a .500+ SLG in that context is wearing some mighty big boots, y'know?

You didn't mention Sweeney earlier (you mean Ryan Sweeney with the Sox, right?), and he really doesn't belong in the same conversation as the other guys. He's advanced far enough at a young age that most of his projection is going to be based on scouting, rather than stats, which makes it wildly subjective.

Also, the middle three players all get a little bonus credit on Lubanski for being 3Bs, instead of corner OFs. It's true that Stewart may have to change positions due to Atkins, but until then he deserves to be treated as a 3B for as long as he shows he can handle it.

Is Lubanski's defense that bad that he had to switch from CF or was it that Mitch Maier was so good in CF? I agree, Lubanski would be a lot more valuable as a CF, even with DeJesus ahead of him.

To summarize, I guess the short answer to your question would be that Stewart, Rowell, and Campbell have received more hype than Lubanski because they have a more consistent offensive track record, and Ellsbury has received more hype because he's got much more defensive value.

I don't know why Sweeney has been hyped so much, and I certainly wouldn't give him more than a B if I were doing the grading.

"Is Lubanski's defense that bad that he had to switch from CF or was it that Mitch Maier was so good in CF?"

My impression is that it's the former. He's supposedly lost a lot of the speed he had as a H.S. player, with the added mass/power.

This article, which attempted to compile PBP-type defensive numbers for minor league players, name-checked Lubanski as one of the OFs who scored worst under the system. Caveat emptor with a new system and all that, but not a good sign.

FWIW, the same system had Ellsbury as the best defensive CF in the whole minors.

This article, which attempted to compile PBP-type defensive numbers for minor league players, name-checked Lubanski as one of the OFs who scored worst under the system. Caveat emptor with a new system and all that, but not a good sign.

I wonder how much having Lubanski and Butler flubbing around the outfield affects how we should evaluate Wichita pitchers (and Omaha pitchers next year).

My impression is that it's the former. He's supposedly lost a lot of the speed he had as a H.S. player, with the added mass/power.

This article, which attempted to compile PBP-type defensive numbers for minor league players, name-checked Lubanski as one of the OFs who scored worst under the system. Caveat emptor with a new system and all that, but not a good sign.

Eh, he MAY have lost some straight-line speed over the past couple years as he has added mass to his frame, but he still has plenty of functional speed in his game (11 triples last season, although he's never been a great base stealer).

I saw Lubanski play a handful of times last year, and he looked plenty fast to me; that being said, the guy ran a 6.1 60 coming out of high school, so the "lost a lot of speed" point may be relative.

One thing is certain: he will never be confused with Billy Butler out in the field.

Interesting question. It's worth thinking about, though you always have to take minor-league numbers with a grain of salt due to the quality of the fields and such.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Dayton pick up a glovely minor-league FA at CF to make the whole point moot, either. He seems really big on CF defense for pitcher development.

"One thing is certain: he will never be confused with Billy Butler out in the field."

And thank God for that.

Please don't think that I'm hoping for him to fail, or anything like that. I like the guy and want him to succed; I'm just a little more skeptical about his chances than you are.

SBE,

I don't mean to imply that you're not telling the truth on Lubanski's 60 time - but do you have a source on that? I've seen plenty of flyers, and I've never witnessed anything lower than a low 6.3.

From Baseball America's 2003 Pre-Draft overview:

"His hitting ability is obvious, but his best tool is his speed. He's been timed in less than 6.5 seconds in the 60-yard dash. He has long strides and glides to balls in center; it's a sight to behold watching him leg out triples, a frequent occurrence." emphasis added.

Good call Max.

I could have sworn that I read an old report on Perfect Game listing his 60 time at 6.1, but it appears he topped out at 6.35. That is still mind-numbingly fast and was good enough to be the best time for all prospects in the 03 draft, but not the 6.1 as I earlier stated....my bad.

I'm thinking I mixed up his 60 time with Royals 06 4th round pick Derrick Robinson, who ran a 6.1 and who also was the fastest player in his draft class.

based on the power Butler has already displayed as a 19/20 year old, I would bet my life savings that he will hit for more power than Martinez.

I think the bigger difference for me is in the BB/K ratio. Martinez's was the reverse of Butler's in the minors. Edgar may have had the best batting eye of any player since Ted Williams.

Which brings me back to my initial point: why do guys such as Ellsbury, Stewart, Rowell, Campbell, and Sweeney get plenty of respect/attention in prospect circles, yet Lubanski gets no love? None of these players can trump Lubanksi's "one good season", and a few of them have yet to have anything comparable to a breakout season.

Scouting, it's why despite similar #'s at the smae college Alex Gordon was a #2 overall pick, and Ken Harvey was a 5th rounder.

Scouting, it's why despite similar #'s at the smae college Alex Gordon was a #2 overall pick, and Ken Harvey was a 5th rounder.
Page 1 of 1 pages

I'm not sure that argument holds much weight, since Lubanski didn't exactly come out of nowhere to put up solid numbers.

If we want to get into specifics, Lubanski was actually drafted higher than any of the players I mentioned; the scouting aspect you bring up should actually benefit him when compared to the others.