These are a lot of high grades. I like Elvis Andrus, too, but let's not get carried away.

I've never seen the idea of a "floor" in prospect lists before. Aren't these kind of optimstic?

I find it hard to believe that in a worst-case scenario only one of these 20 guys fails to make the big leagues.

Well, I think what is key is to wait what other guys will look like.

I think it is often difficult to compare different grading systems. It seems like an A- in James' system would be a B+ in Sickells'. Basically, knock everyone down a third . . . but we will see what it turns into.

Greg K is right...I think a lot of "prospect ratings" start out by including both a floor and a ceiling, and then realize that the "floor" or "worst case scenario" should really say

1. Neftali Feliz | Stats | Depot Grade: A
Floor: career-ending injury

2. Elvis Andrus | Stats | Depot Grade: A-
Floor: AAA backup

3. Derek Holland | Stats | Depot Grade: A-
Floor: AAA middle reliever

4. Taylor Teagarden | Stats | Depot Grade: A-
Floor: 3rd catcher

5. Justin Smoak | Stats | Depot Grade: A-
Floor: AAA backup

6. Engle Beltre | Stats | Depot Grade: B+
Floor: AAA backup

7. Martin Perez | Stats | Depot Grade: B+
Floor: AAA middle reliever

8. Eric Hurley | Stats | Depot Grade: B+
Floor: AAA middle reliever

9. Wilfredo Boscan | Stats | Depot Grade: B+
Floor: AAA middle reliever

10. Neil Ramirez | Stats | Depot Grade: B
Floor: AAA middle reliever

11. Michael Main | Stats | Depot Grade: B
Floor: AAA middle reliever

12. Robbie Ross | Stats (N/A) | Depot Grade: B
Floor: AAA middle reliever

13. Julio Borbon | Stats | Depot Grade: B
Floor: AAA backup

14. Blake Beavan | Stats | Depot Grade: B
Floor: AAA middle reliever

15. Max Ramirez | Stats | Depot Grade: B
Floor: AAA backup

16. John Mayberry, Jr. | Stats | Depot Grade: B
Floor: strikes out 300 times a year, sold to Taiwan

17. Cristian Santana | Stats | Depot Grade: B-
Floor: AAA backup

18. Wilmer Font | Stats | Depot Grade: B-
Floor: career-ending injury

19. Joe Wieland | Stats | Depot Grade: B-
Floor: AAA middle reliever

20. Fabio Castillo | Stats | Depot Grade: B-
Floor: AAA middle reliever

So why do only some pitchers have a floor of a career ending injury while others have a minor league middle reliever?

Floor to me sound more like using a standard deviation or some error as opposed to a true floor.

One of the guys sometimes posts here when he notices I put up a link. Sickells doesn't seem to, but these guys do. Maybe he will clarify how their criteria differs from others. Just be interesting to know, because the site does go into these guys a bit more than most.

Hmmm, we could also email them.

Who else grades prospects besides this site and John Sickells? Do BP and BA grade or do they just list them?

Who else grades prospects besides this site and John Sickells? Do BP and BA grade or do they just list them?

BP (or, more precisely, Kevin Goldstein) ranks prospects as "5 star," "4 star" and so forth. 5 star seems to encompass roughly the top 50 prospects, with 4 star maybe the next 100.

Sickels' grading scale (roughly):

A = 1-5
A- = 6-25
B+ = 26-75
B = 76-150

and so on.

This list looks significantly inflated from that - maybe double the ranges (1-10, 11-50, ...)?

Hi all. The concept of a "floor" is problematic with regards to prospects. As Greg K points out, the floors listed for the Rangers certainly appear "optimistic". Part of that is due to the current state of Rangers organization (in our estimation at The Depot) and part of it is due to our scoring scale.

First, in assigning floors we have removed injury from the equation as it seems arbitrary to try and predict injuries, and of little use to simply state "injured and out of baseball" for every prospect. You will see in future lists the two lowest floor, which are "AAAA" and "non-prospect". This likely signifies a prospect who is still in the early stages of development and has enough holes in his game that talent-related struggles could conceivably strip him of prospect status. For most advanced prospects, "AAAA" is used as a floor to indicate the prospect has holes that may prevent him from succeeding at the ML-level, but his current tool set should be enough to progress through the minors.

I hope this clarifies things a bit. My goal was to give a little more insight as to a range of possible (indeed likely) outcomes based on current skill level, tool set and minor league progress rather than simply assigning a letter grade. My hope is that this will allow interested individuals to compare and contrast players of similar letter grades who are at different stages of their development. And above all, as with all of us discussing and writing on baseball, I hope to encourage discussion and debate.

Anyway, thanks for reading. Hopefully you'll check in with our future lists and let us at The Depot know your thoughts. Critiques are always appreciated, as it's what allows us all to fine-tune our thinking.

Cheers, NJ

I forgot to add, we do take into account players with mechanics that may be problematic, and it is reflected in their projection and letter grade. So a pitcher with a high effort delivery is more likely to score lower and perhaps project to the bullpen than another pitcher with identical stuff but cleaner mechanics and easy arm action.

Thanks for explaining the floors! Of course I know nothing about the Rangers prospects so all I can contribute is complaints.

Now, check this out.

John Mayberry Jr. traded to Phillies for Greg Golson

Not Greg Olson. Not even Gregg Olson. Greg "Michael Bourn with power" Golson.

I'm surprised.

If you simply look at the "best worst-case scenario," you're going to systemically overrate prospects who have a very high chance of flaming out and underrate prospects who have a (relatively) high chance of being productive regulars. Max Ramirez is perhaps the best example of this: the only possible way you can rank about 2/3 of the players ahead of him as better "prospects" is to ignore the fact that, while maybe someone like Perez has a higher ceiling (though frankly I'm not even sure about that), Ramirez is orders of magnitude more likely to have a non-trivial career.

In other words, I think you're vastly overestimating the likelihood that someone like Perez will have a MLB career at all and then using that estimate to say "well, Perez is somewhere between a bullpen arm and an ace, while Martinez is somewhere between an average 1B and a somewhat above-average C, so since the range is similar I'll take the guy with the higher upside." That's not the usual point of evaluating prospects - the idea is to look for the guys with the most expected value, not just the guys with the best (but still miniscule) chance of being a Hall-of-Famer.

I like Taylor Teagarden, but there's no way he's either an A- or above Smoak. He's striking out 30% of the time in the minors and 40% of the time in the bigs. I put as much stock into last season's callup as Jeremy Reed's stats from 2005.

I'm not familiar with Derek Holland. You have to like 3 HR in 150 IP and 1 in 57 IP in Bakersfield and Frisco, as well as the 4/1 K/BB and K-rate, whatever the voltage, amperage, or ohmage of his stuff.

il returno -- As I mentioned above, likelihood of "flameout" is taken into account with the player's grade and the current projection, just not with regards to labeling a floor. I understand the points you are making, I just disagree with some of them (respectfully, of course). The players are not rated primarily on ceiling, which your post seems to imply. This is an honest appraisal of each player as they currently stand with regards to development and toolset. With regards to your example of Ramirez and Perez, I would ask you which player you would rather have in your system if you could only have one? I understand the value of a prospect being close to fully-baked, and thus more dependable from a projection standpoint. I simply feel that for what Ramirez is, he is no where near as valuable as the prospects at the top of the list. It's a difference of valuation, to be sure, I just wanted to be clear that the items you discuss have been taken into account.

Of course, next November I'll have a better feel for how well this list holds up, and the following November a better idea still. I respect that others will have a different take on both the individual grades and the rankings (and certainly many will have a VERY different take!). I am comfortable with our grading and look forward to seeing how the lists hold up.

Thanks for your critiques, they are appreciated and will be kept in consideration.

-NJ

Kyle S -- Teagarden and Smoak were very close, and I went back and forth several times. Ultimately, I took the advanced catcher over the potentially lethal bat that has been streaky with wood in the past.

I may be a bigger fan of Teagarden than some -- I've seen him up close a couple of times and on film several more and love the way he handles himself behind the plate. I like his swing and approach -- I'm confident the bat will consistently play at the ML level.

-NJ

Crispix -- Complaints are always welcome. I like the deal a little more for TEX. Golson hasn't progressed as much as I'd like, but I think he has better chance to stick than Mayberry. I also think he's more likely to provide ML value with his defense alone if the bat never fully develops. Looks like Mayberry will be making an appearance on at least 2 Top 20 lists, though. Maybe he'll be this year's Mike Costanzo? -NJ

One of the guys sometimes posts here when he notices I put up a link. Sickells doesn't seem to,

Sickels used to come on. I assume he still lurks.

John Sickels is very busy at this time of year, between his book and Web site. I don't think he spends much time anywhere else now.

Mayberry for Golson is a change-of-scenery trade, nothing more or less. I like Mayberry better than Golson, but don't really like either.

If I'd been Jon Daniels, I would not have been inclined to let Teagarden play in the Olympics. He really needs a full year where he and the team can just concentrate on his development - don't forget he lost 2006, and bouncing around in 2008 can't have helped.

Holland added about 3-4 MPH to his fastball this year, which took him from the realm of back-of-the-rotation to front-of-the-rotation, assuming he stays healthy. He's near the top of my list of "guys-who-took-big-steps-forward-this-year".

-- MWE

Tommy Hunter doesn't make the list. Wasn't he a high draft pick?