Wow, I'm really surprised by a couple of the grades here.

Madison Bumgarner is a nice arm, but he's only 18 and has pitched just one season at Low A (South Atlantic League). A grade of a full A seems overly generous of Sickles, who's usually more conservative with young pitchers who have a limited track record. His upside is obviously an A, but I would have expected him to be in the B-range in terms of median expected performance.

Posey, Villalona and Alderson are all about where I thought Sickles would rate them. But I'm surprised that Conor Gillaspie rates a B-. He's the latest in a series of Giants prospects who hit for a decent BA with good strike-zone judgment, but have limited power and defensive limitations that will force them from 3B to 1B or corner outfield--the so-called Ortmeier Cloud. As such, a C+ would be generous. As I understand Sickles' grade, a B- implies that he's a good shot at having a career as a regular player (albeit undistinguished). I'll be surprised if he sees 500 career AB's.

Likewise, Nick Noonan has good secondary skills, but strikes out far too often for a guy who is not going to hit for much power. Until he shows better plate discipline and/or continues to do what he's done at a higher level, a C+ seems to be where he should be.


FWIW, my grades on these guys:

1) Posey: A- (Sickles: A-)
2) Alderson: B+ (Sickles: B+)
3) Bumgarner: B+ (Sickles: A)
4) Villalona: B (Sickles: B)
5) Sosa: C+ (Sickles: B-)
6) Gillaspie: C+ (Sickles: B-)
7) Noonan: C+ (Sickles: B-)

As I see it, the Giants only have four players in their system who have anything close to a good shot to become full-time MLB regulars--and only one of those is a close-to-certain future star (Posey). They have some guys in the low minors who have some interesting upside, but far from sure things. I'm sure that John has his reasons for rating giving the B- trio special recognition, but in my estimation there's little to distinguish them from the other C/C+ guys in the Giants' system, past and present.

And then there's the 16 year old who hasn't even played in the DSL and the pitcher with 3.3 innings above rookie league. . . Well, they're C+s and the standard disclaimers apply, I guess.

A1E, I tend to agree with your arguments. I get the idea reading the comments, though, that Sickels is grading pitchers without discounting for increased injury risk, so Bumgarner is an A because if he does not pull a Foppert, Sickels sees him as a future star. Even in that taxonomy, I mark him down myself, just to A-. He was real darn good last year, and if Sickels heard he's improved his secondary pitches, that's even better.

I do think you're being a little hard, unless you're just exaggerating for effect. "Anything close to a good shot to become full-time MLB regulars" would seem to include any player who is, say, a 30% chance to be a regular player. Of those, I'd say the system has more; I'd count Gillaspie and Tanner, certainly. If you meant anyone who has a 48% shot of being a regular, though, I might slice the number down to 2: Posey, and whichever half of Bumgarner/Alderson doesn't flame out.

It should also be mentioned that the Giants have a number of pre-arb hitters who just barely escape classification as rookies. FWIW, my attempt to grade them in accordance with Sickles' system:

Sandoval: B-
Exciting player who would rate quite a bit higher if he projected to stay at catcher, or even 3B. But it seems like 1B will soon be the only position that he's capable of playing after he turns 25. Will never hit for enough power to be an asset on the wrong of the defensive spectrum unless he can maintain a BA in excess of .300 (obviously unlikely). Could be useful to the team in the short-term as a C/1B/3B supersub.

Burriss: C+
Useful spare part, but isn't a good enough defender to compensate for his lack of offensive upside.

Schierholtz: C+
Similar to Sandoval in that he might have been an asset if he could player outside corner outfield or 1B. He's the latest in a long line of AAAA corners that the Giants have produced over the past 10 years.

Ochoa: C-
Slightly inferior version of Burriss pretty much across the board, which makes him a AAAA middle infielder. Okay as a temporary sub for a regular taking a trip to the DL, but shouldn't rate higher than third or fourth at any position on a good team's depth chart.

Velez: D+
Fun guy to watch--and not always in a good way. If the guy was halfway decent in the middle infield he might have a future as a 25th man. But his total lack of ability to play any position at level approaching tolerable negates his very limited offensive upside. Leaving him on the 40 man roster this winter was a very poor decision, IMHO.

Bowker: D+
Simply doesn't have the plate discipline to be a MLB corner, even as a bench player. A torrid start at the beginning of 2008 (plus the lack of anyone better at the time) secured him a couple hundred more ABs than he really deserved. There's a remote chance that he could develop power late, in which case he's got a shot as a career AAAA platoon hitter. There's no reason for him to be on the 40 man roster, IMHO.

Horwitz: D
Similar to Burriss/Ochoa, Horwitz is a slightly inferior version of Schierholtz pretty much across the board. He's off the 40 man roster after the Giants outrighted him at the end of September and aspires to be a AAAA corner. Should never, ever spend a day on the 40 man roster, much less get any playing time in the majors ever again.

Rohlinger: D
I really don't understand why this guy was kept on the 40 man roster at the expense of Travis Denker (who was lost on waivers to the Padres in October). He's got absolutely no upside--he didn't play above Low A until his age 24 season. Was clearly overmatched in his cup of coffee last year. About the only nice thing that you can say about him is that he's a better defender at 3B than Connor Gillaspie.

Bocock: F
He's got a fine glove with absolutely no offensive upside. There's no reason to keep him around other than as organizational filler. Between Ochoa and Burriss, the Giants have depth at shortstop. Why on earth is he on the 40 man roster???


Speaking of Denker, I think he's a C+ prospect with a broad skillset, not very gifted in any single area but the overall package offered some upside at 2B. Losing him on waivers while keeping inferior players like Rohlinger and Bocock (and even Ochoa) was just plain stupid on Sabean's part. I believe that 2009 is his last options year, but I would have liked to have seen how he did in a full year at AAA before deciding to cut him loose. It's possible that the Giants would have wound up losing him to waivers in the 2009 offseason or during 2010 spring training, but why not give one more year to see if he developed into something useful?

I get the idea reading the comments, though, that Sickels is grading pitchers without discounting for increased injury risk, so Bumgarner is an A because if he does not pull a Foppert, Sickels sees him as a future star. Even in that taxonomy, I mark him down myself, just to A-. He was real darn good last year, and if Sickels heard he's improved his secondary pitches, that's even better.

I'm discounting Bumgarner not only because of injury risk, but also because he hasn't proven himself above Low A. He dominated the South Atlantic League last year, which is outstanding for an 18 year-old. We're just extrapolating from scouts that his stuff is good enough to get more mature hitters out. I'd like to see him duplicate the same level of success at AA before grading him an A.

A Sickles' A basically means that the guys almost certain to be a consistent All Star at the major league level. IIRC, he only rated Lincecum an A- prior to the 2007 season (and Lincecum had proved himself against Pac10 college hitters prior to dominating at various minor league levels, including A+). As such, he seldom gives them, which makes awarding Bumgarner with one quite surprising. IMHO, to rate an 18 year-old pitcher who hasn't been tested against better competition seems like a reach at this point. His upside may be an A, but plenty of pitchers have looked gang-busters against immature hitters only to be exposed as mediocrities in the high minors, much less the majors. If he looks this good after a year at AA, then anoint him as the next Kerry Wood or whatever.


I do think you're being a little hard, unless you're just exaggerating for effect. "Anything close to a good shot to become full-time MLB regulars" would seem to include any player who is, say, a 30% chance to be a regular player. Of those, I'd say the system has more; I'd count Gillaspie and Tanner, certainly.

Its not hyperbole--I just don't see a lot of future major leaguers in the Giants' system right now. 30% chance as "anything close to a good shot" sounds about right.

If Gillaspie had Rohlinger's glove, then I'd be more optimistic about he chances at having a major league career. But I don't see any future for him at a position other than LF or 1B, in which case he doesn't have the offensive talent to stick in the majors as a bench player, much less project as a regular. He reminds me a lot of Tony Torcato both in build and skill set: good line drive hitter who never developed much power and who couldn't stick at 3B.

As for Tanner, I think Sickles nailed it right on the head when he suggested that he might be a sleeper. He reminds me a lot of Noah Lowry: not overpowering, but doesn't walk many hitters and doesn't give up many homers. But a C+ sounds about right for him right now--he still needs to prove himself at AA or AAA against more disciplined hitters to see if his awesome walk rate can be maintained. But even if he establishes himself in the majors, his ceiling is probably just a 4th starter (ie, a B/B- prospect).

Bumgarner attended high school in my county.

That is all.