Jump to content

RandyMarsh

2018 Draft Pick Watch

Recommended Posts


 Law was asked a couple Tigers related questions on his chat today.  Somebody asked him if he thought Daz was a future everyday starter and he said "for sure".  Somebody also asked out of the big 5 pitching prospects(Mize,Manning,Faedo,Burrows,Perez) who did he so most likely to be in the bullpen and he said Faedo and Perez have the highest chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fangraphs have updated their prospect board/rankings.... They rank to 130.

1. Mize - 33 overall

2. Daz - 41

3. Paredes - 42

4. Manning - 110

5. Franklin Perez - 113

6. Stewart - 117

7. Burrows - 129

8. Rogers

9. Gerber

10. Alcantara

 11. Castro  

12. Lugo

13. Wenceel

14. Funk

15. Faedo

They also had this to say about Wencell, who has moved up their ranks...

 

Quote

Wenceel Perez, SS, DET -Though not as twitchy as the aforementioned Brujan, Perez is another slick-gloved middle infielder with great bat control and advanced feel/instincts.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-final-pro-side-update-to-the-board/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing they didn't feel it was necessary to include #Deathrage because everybody already knows he's THE top prospect.

On a more serious note it is nice to see Paredes getting some love, I suspect when the preseason rankings come out from other places they will follow suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, irvink said:

Fangraphs have updated their prospect board/rankings.... They rank to 130.

1. Mize - 33 overall

2. Daz - 41

3. Paredes - 42

4. Manning - 110

5. Franklin Perez - 113

6. Stewart - 117

7. Burrows - 129

8. Rogers

9. Gerber

10. Alcantara

 11. Castro  

12. Lugo

13. Wenceel

14. Funk

15. Faedo

They also had this to say about Wencell, who has moved up their ranks...

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-final-pro-side-update-to-the-board/

Surprised Clemens is not on the list.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am becoming more and more optimistic about Paredes as the days and weeeks go by and I read more and more positive reviews about him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Hart said:

Surprised Clemens is not on the list.  

They had Clemens ranked 31 out of the 33 prospects they ranked w/in the org. They have him a future value of 35+, so clearly not believers.

Parker Meadows was 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Charles Liston said:

They aren't buying Robson.

Kid is from Canada.  Don't ever doubt a Canadian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haivng 3 guys in the top 40ish is good, eh?   Having 7 in the top 130 also appears to be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Oblong said:

Haivng 3 guys in the top 40ish is good, eh?   Having 7 in the top 130 also appears to be good.

It can't true since the front office stinks and has made rotten trades and draft picks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, LooseGoose said:

It can't true since the front office stinks and has made rotten trades and draft picks.

Too many shortstops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oblong said:

Haivng 3 guys in the top 40ish is good, eh?   Having 7 in the top 130 also appears to be good.

It is good.  Tigers have 7 in top 130 as follows:  3 guys in top 42 ..and 4 others from 110 to 129.

Meanwhile, AL Central division rivals:

Indians only have 4 in top 130 ..although all 4 from at below 87th.

Twinkees have 5 in top 130 as follows: 2 guys in top 15 ..and 3 others in top 98.

White Sox have 11 in top 130 as follows: 4 guys top 27 ..5 others top 98 ..2 more from 116 to 130.

........................

Looking at top 100 only:

White Sox have 9

Twins have 5

Indians have 4

Tigers have 3.

........................

But again, 7 in top 130 is good ..and actually very good considering where they were just 2 short years ago.

.........................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tigrrfan said:

It is good.  Tigers have 7 in top 130 as follows:  3 guys in top 42 ..and 4 others from 110 to 129.

Meanwhile, AL Central division rivals:

Indians only have 4 in top 130 ..although all 4 from at below 87th.

Twinkees have 5 in top 130 as follows: 2 guys in top 15 ..and 3 others in top 98.

White Sox have 11 in top 130 as follows: 4 guys top 27 ..5 others top 98 ..2 more from 116 to 130.

........................

Looking at top 100 only:

White Sox have 9

Twins have 5

Indians have 4

Tigers have 3.

........................

But again, 7 in top 130 is good ..and actually very good considering where they were just 2 short years ago.

.........................

No reason to cut it off at 100. That’s pretty arbitrary. This particular set of rankings cut it off around 130 for a reason, mostly because there isn’t much difference between a guy ranked 90 and a guy ranked 130. 

The number of guys in the top 130 is nice, but I’m happier to see the three guys ranked in the top 40 or so. A lot of fans have been high on paredes, so it’s nice to see him get his due. 

To have a SP, a CF, and an infielder ranked so highly is great. All three of these guys look to be on track to contribute in 2020. And you could say the same about the others that made the cut. There is a lot of variance in what they will actually do when they are given the chance in the majors, so optimism needs to be dialed back (which most people tend to acknowledge), but it sure beats the alternative of not even having these potential 2020 guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shelton said:

No reason to cut it off at 100. That’s pretty arbitrary.

Yes it is .. and thank you for pointing that out.  I have discovered that some sites do cut it off at 100 max.

But whatever .. 90, 100, 130, 150 ..to each his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, retiredsport said:

What happened to Peterson and Willi Castro?  They are ranked in the low teens in others.

Fangraphs is arbitrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Charles Liston said:

They aren't buying Robson.

I think one of two things would have to happen to get him out of that fourth outfielder status. He'd have to greatly increase his power, or vastly improve his contact rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Tigrrfan said:

Fangraphs is arbitrary.

Prospect picks are pretty arbitrary in general, although FanGraphs makes more sense to me than MLB Pipeline.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

43 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Prospect picks are pretty arbitrary in general, although FanGraphs makes more sense to me than MLB Pipeline.  

I agree .. arbitrary in general.

I like fangraphs too.

Conversation on this here MTS site has perked my interest in Tiger prospects.  Never much followed Tiger prospects since mid-to-late 1970's.  IIRC correctly ..Trammell and Whitaker were heavily promoted during radio broadcasts by Ernie H (or was it Al K on TV?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tigrrfan said:

 

I agree .. arbitrary in general.

I like fangraphs too.

Conversation on this here MTS site has perked my interest in Tiger prospects.  Never much followed Tiger prospects since mid-to-late 1970's.  IIRC correctly ..Trammell and Whitaker were heavily promoted during radio broadcasts by Ernie H (or was it Al K on TV?).

If you didn't follow prospects between the 70s and now, you didn't miss much.  There were some good ones here and there, but never much depth.  The 70s was great.  Right now, they seem to have more depth than they have had since the 70s.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

Prospect picks are pretty arbitrary in general, although FanGraphs makes more sense to me than MLB Pipeline.  

I disagree with this. Just because ranking prospects is subjective and difficult to do with a high degree of certainty doesn’t make it arbitrary. I think that most of the “respected” prospect tankers put a lot of thought into deciding which prospects are more valuable than others. 

My comment regarding the arbitrary nature of the rankings was limited to the idea that a ranking should be cut off at 50 or 100 or 10. If a team has 13 guys that are graded at 45 FV or higher, then just say so. If there are 137 guys in all of baseball that are graded at 45 FV or higher, so be it. If you want to cut it off at 50, then list 72 guys. Whatever. 

I have no issue with drawing a line somewhere. There needs to be an objective place to draw the line, though. Not just some round number. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, retiredsport said:

What happened to Peterson and Willi Castro?  They are ranked in the low teens in others.

Castro was 11.

Peterson does not seem like much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×