RR Royals Prospect #4

by doublestix on Oct 18, 2008 12:54 AM EDT

#1 Mike Moustakas, 3B
#2 Eric Hosmer, 1B
#3 Daniel Cortes, RHP
#4 ???

Looks like Cortes is the winner, not surprisingly.

Vote for who you believe is the Royals #4 prospect. I suspect the voting will start to get a tad more bunched together about now. You could make an argument for quite a few players at this point...

Short scouting reports:

Daniel Duffy | LHP | 19-years-old | 6-foot-3, 185 pounds
-Four pitch lefty. Fastball 88-93, has been clocked higher in the past. Good curve, good change, both potential to be plus. Still needs to improve fastball command, but made huge strides this year thanks to improved mechanics.

Johnny Giavotella | 2B | 21-years-old | 5-foot-8, 185 pounds
-Small second baseman that can hit. Quick hands, good eye, lets ball travel deep into zone which gives him some power. Average defender. Does everything well, but nothing great -- similar to David DeJesus.

Kila Ka'aihue | 1B | 24-years-old | 6-foot-3, 230 pounds
-Tremendous plate discipline with very good power. Defense at 1B isn't particularly great, but it plays. Charts all of his AB's and strives to get better. Not a great minor league track record. Nearly big league ready if not already there.

Tim Melville | RHP | 18-years-old | 6-foot-5, 205 pounds
-Extremely projectable with present stuff. Already 91-94 with chance for plus curve and change. Scouts love his long term fastball projection, think he could throw very hard.

Carlos Rosa | RHP | 24-years-old | 6-foot-1, 185 pounds
-Smallish righty with great fastball. Ranges 92-95 with a little sink. Plus hard slider, his best pitch. Good change but inconsistent. Might be a bullpen guy long term. Nearly big league ready.

Poll

Who is the Royals #4 prospect? (players listed in alphabetical order)

Daniel Duffy, LHP

29 votes

Johnny Giavotella, 2B

1 votes

Kila Ka'aihue, 1B

37 votes

Tim Melville, RHP

30 votes

Carlos Rosa, RHP

21 votes

Other (give reason)

2 votes

120 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 87 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Also

This would probably be a good time to give a suggestion or two as to who should appear on the next poll.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Oct 18, 2008 12:55 AM EDT reply actions

Mike Montgomery, Dan Gutierrez, Blake Wood

should all probably start making appearances soon, Montgomery in particular.

by DarthYoshi on Oct 18, 2008 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions

Derrick Robinson, Kelvin Herrera, Paulo Orlando

Kelvin seems like to be just as good as Dan Gutierrez and next year I think it will be the breakout year for Derrick Robinson. Any opinion on how and where Paulo Orlando ranks as a prospect in the Royals organization? He seemed to do well in Wilmington after the we received him the trade with Horacio Ramirez.

by Rogue Buddhist on Oct 18, 2008 4:12 AM EDT reply actions

Orlando

I would say that he definitely isn’t a top 20 prospect and probably not even top 30. He did pretty well in 71 at bats in Wilmington (high-A) after the Royals acquired him (.254/.325/.507), but in 451 at bats this season before that in Winston-Salem (in the same league), he hit .262/.308/.408. So his overall numbers for the season were unimpressive. And he did this at age 22, which isn’t exactly young for the level. And his minor league performance history before that isn’t any better. So, he has some tools, but he still has a long way to go before he’ll be considered a genuine prospect.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2008 7:22 AM EDT up reply actions

The guy is also from Brazil and didn't play much until drafted..

He might getter a lot better very quickly.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Oct 18, 2008 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions

You would have to think that for the moment he is the heir appearent to be the Royals starting centerfielder right now in 2011.

That should make him a top 20 pick, but so much uncertainly with him I don’t think you could pick him in the top 10 right now. The potential value he has to the Royals has got to put him in the top 30 right now NYRoyal.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Oct 18, 2008 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions

I really don't think that's true

No, I don’t think he is the heir apparent to be the Royals starting CFer in 2011. First, DeJesus has a club option for 2011. Second, Maier is higher on the organizational depth chart than Orlando and would definitely be more likely to take over CF than Orlando. Third, if Maier isn’t a viable option at that point, they’ll go out and get someone outside of the organization. Fourth, the lack of depth in the organization at the CF position does not affect Orlando’s prospect ranking. There are at least 25 better prospects in the Royals organization. Probably more than 30.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2008 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Ryan Langerhans cleared waivers earlier this week...

Great defensive numbers and rep. Can’t hit that well, but would be a great 4th OF if the Royals think MITCH can’t hack it.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by Matt Klaassen on Oct 18, 2008 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions

bring him in.

Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.

by 306008 on Oct 19, 2008 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions

DDJ is having a hard time holding down cf now (-10 fielding), and

in three years he is most likely worse. I think that Olando projects to be better in every way then Maier in three years. The Royals could go outside and get a better cf, which would hurt his prospect ranking if it happens, and that would make me happy. The fact that you mentioned that, Maier, and DDJ as part of your reasoning means that the lack of organizationa depth does indeed affect his ranking, and that pretty much negates your forth reason. If the Royals don’t go get another center fielder next year and Orlando has a good season, he could be a top 10 Royal prospect after next year, that potential has to play into him being a higher prospect then #30 right now.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Oct 18, 2008 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions

DDJ is having a hard time holding down cf now (-10 fielding), and in three years he is most likely worse

I think you’re reading too much into one year of fielding stats. Those metrics can fluctuate significantly from year-to-year and it often has nothing to do with actual decline (see the very significant difference between Gordon and Teahen’s 2007 and 2008 fielding stats).

I think that Olando projects to be better in every way then Maier in three years.

Why? Orlando has never had a good season in the minors, and he’s a little old for his minor league level. If you’re 22 and still haven’t put together a good minor league season, there isn’t much reason to believe the guy is a decent prospect. He has some decent tools, so he could improve, but he’s yet to ever turn those tools into results. I don’t think any prospect analyst would say that he projects to be better than Maier.

The fact that you mentioned that, Maier, and DDJ as part of your reasoning means that the lack of organizationa depth does indeed affect his ranking, and that pretty much negates your forth reason.

Huh? There are 20-30+ players in the Royals system who are better than Orlando. Shortage at a position does not make a poor prospect a pretty good prospect.

If the Royals don’t go get another center fielder next year and Orlando has a good season, he could be a top 10 Royal prospect after next year, that potential has to play into him being a higher prospect then #30 right now.

You have a unique way of looking at prospect rankings. No serious prospect rankings (like BA, BP, and Sickels) uses the shortage a system has at a position as a way to bump up a player in the team’s ranking. For instance, if an organization has a shortage of catching prospects (and almost all organizations do), that doesn’t lead prospect rankings to push a catcher into the team’s top 10 or top 20. You’ll notice that no prospect rankings have a catcher in the Royals top 20. That’s because the Royals have at least 20 players who are better prospects than any Royals catching prospect. Position shortage in the organization doesn’t affect prospect rankings. There’s no reason it should.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2008 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions

bleacherreport.com/articles/70232-impact-arrivals/show_full

In an article by Clark Foster who covers the Royals for Royals Authority on the MVN network and also track the entire Royals’ farm system at The Royal Line.

PAULO ORLANDO, OF – The bounty for signing Horacio Ramirez off the scrap heap, this fleet outfielder with decent pop might have it all figured out by 2011. If this guy can conquer the strikeout bug, he could be really special. If not, we’ll never see Orlando in Kansas City. If I had to wager, Orlando is the 2011 opening day centerfielder.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Oct 19, 2008 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions

I'll take that bet

I’d bet a year’s salary and everything I own that Paulo Orlando is not the Royals regular CFer ever. Frankly, I think it is likely that he never plays a game in the major leagues.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 19, 2008 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions

This sounds similar to when Fernando Cortez was acquired

as the throw in on one of the deals. There were people who swore he was the MI of the future (or at the very least UI), despite him not really being very good.

by Top Ramen on Oct 19, 2008 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah

You need to have toolsy guys in the system because a small percentage of them will actually blossom and become genuinely good (Carlos Beltran was a toolsy prospect who struggled mightily in the low minors before “figuring it out”). But it is hard to expect much from any of them. The vast majority of them won’t ever become major leaguers at all. And typically the toolsy prospects who struggle early and then put it together are kids who started pro ball at 17/18 and then start really putting things together in their early 20’s after a few minor league seasons. Unfortunately, Orlando started pro ball at 20 and he’s 22 already. Hopefully the fact that he started organized baseball later than most other minor leaguers means that his developmental curve will look different than normal.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 19, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm confused

is it going to be 2010 or 2011 when Orlando comes up and pulls a Beltran?

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by Matt Klaassen on Oct 19, 2008 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I f'ing hate pessimists like you

2009, you uber-negative prick

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 19, 2008 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Hey....

I’m not saying he’s not not capable of being a center field version of Chase Utley on defensive (+47! Seriously, why the hell aren’t people talking more about this! Holy Sh-t! That’s like Mark Ellis and the O-Dog’s best year combined! I also hear he can hit.), I’m just afraid that he’ll only hit .290/.350/.430, which would be super disappointing.

If he’s not Grady Sizemore, it’s a waste of time, that’s all I’m saying.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by Matt Klaassen on Oct 19, 2008 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions

When Paulo Orlando's career is over

…people won’t even remember that Beltran and Sizemore ever played the game. In addition to the unbelievable defense, he’s got some nice pop. You’re really shorting him in his isolated power. I’m thinking more .300/.350/.475 (and that’s in his rookie season).

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 19, 2008 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions

I won't accept anything less than

Mays

Accidentally not thedude925 anymore. I do hate this new name.

by wildthang on Oct 20, 2008 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions

You should expect anything less than Mays.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 20, 2008 1:38 AM EDT up reply actions

what's your salary?

Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.

by 306008 on Oct 19, 2008 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions

more than mine

by Freneau on Oct 20, 2008 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions

I say definitely Rosa

His pitch compliment is as good or better than any Royals prospect. He’s got the stuff and control to be a #2 SP (I would say that is his ceiling). And I think his performance says that he’s more likely to be a successful major league pitcher than any Royals prospect.

And I think he’s definitely a starting pitcher. I don’t see why anyone would think that he profiles as a major league reliever. He’s got the pitches and the control to be a starter. Right now, his pitches profile better for starting than Cortes or Duffy.

As far as who should be on the short list for #5, I would say:

Mellville
Duffy
Montgomery
Ka’aihue
Wood

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2008 7:17 AM EDT reply actions

Can someone explain to me

how scouts/prospect evaluators go about figuring out if a guy “profiles” as a “ace/#2/#3/back of the rotation” guy? I understand how you figure out if a starting pitcher is a 1/2/3/4/5 whatever — take the pool of regular starters in the league, divide it into five “ranks”, and see where a guy fits. But if that’s the standard, how can a scout tell where a guy will fit, especially given that the pitching pool in the majors might be fairly different when he gets up there?

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by Matt Klaassen on Oct 18, 2008 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions

Well, in the case of NYRoyal...

…I think he puts the numbers 1-5 on a dartboard, enjoys a few cold ones, spins around, and throws darts at the numbers. :)

by DarthYoshi on Oct 18, 2008 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions

Ouch!

Well crafted.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2008 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions

I Don't Put

That much thought into anything.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Oct 20, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions

sounds fun

I’m in

Accidentally not thedude925 anymore. I do hate this new name.

by wildthang on Oct 18, 2008 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions

I think it is basically projecting how good of a starting pitcher one thinks a player will be. If he has the stuff, pitch complement and control to dominate, then one would think that he’s a front of the rotation guy. If his stuff, command, etc. would make him more of a mediocre/average starter, then he’s more of a middle of the rotation guy. My point is that these are all estimates. There is no formula where we can plug in stats and fastball velocity and out comes a metric which will tell you that a guy will become a #2 or a #3. And I don’t think that Sickels, Callis, Goldstein or anyone thinks that when they say someone profiles as a #3 SP, they are confident that this will definitely happen and that he definitely won’t be a #2 or #4. They are just giving their best projection of how good the pitcher will become. It’s all just speculation based on available information.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Baseball America

BA lists the following tools as what scouts look for in the ideal profile for each type of starter:

No. 1 Starter:
1. 2 plus pitches
2. Average 3rd pitch
3. Plus-plus command
4. Plus makeup

No. 2 Starter:
1. 2 plus pitches
2. Average 3rd pitch
3. Average command
4. Average makeup

No. 3 Starter:
1. 1 plus pitch
2. 2 average pitches
3. Average command
4. Average makeup

No. 4-5 Starters:
1. Command of 2 major league pitches
2. Average velocity
3. Conistent breaking ball
4. Decent changeup

by Gopherballs on Oct 19, 2008 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions

How Rosa fits into that

1. 2 plus pitches
2. An ok 3rd pitch (maybe below average)
3. Plus command
4. ???? makeup (I’d actually rather he not wear makeup at all, but that’s just me)

So by this his profile is actually closest to a #2.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 19, 2008 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions

(insert joke about A-Rod's "purple lipstick" here)

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by Matt Klaassen on Oct 19, 2008 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions

his myspace page is a definite makeup negative

by Freneau on Oct 20, 2008 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions

does he have one?

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by Matt Klaassen on Oct 20, 2008 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions

+1

by gordonrules on Oct 18, 2008 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions

rosa

i am legitimately worried about his injuries the past couple seasons. i think he’d have been a slam dunk #4 for me, but he only pitched 120 innings in ‘07 and only 99 this past season. that’s not to say he can’t be a good pitcher for us, but it bumps him down a spot or two for me.

not only that, he’s still inconsistent with his 3rd pitch (CH) and has a chance to ultimately be a bullpen guy (albeit a very good one, maybe a closer, saw a rafael soriano comp).

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Oct 18, 2008 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions

That's fair

The injuries are a concern, but I’d be much more concerned if it was a serious pitching shoulder or elbow problem. And as far as his third pitch goes, even very good SP prospects usually have inconsistent third pitches. Rosa has two excellent pitches and two pretty good pitches.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions

why put Wood on the shortlist for #5?

I like Blake Wood a lot, I think he is a legitimate top-10 prospect, but I wouldn’t put him much higher than 8th or 9th.

by DarthYoshi on Oct 18, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions

If you need 5 names for the poll

…and the top 4 are off the board, then the poll would include guys in the 5-9 range. He’s #7 on my list, but he’s in the top 9, then he should be in the poll for #5.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions

dang it

this should be under NYRs comments about Rosa.

by gordonrules on Oct 18, 2008 11:06 AM EDT reply actions

how about Pena?

it seems like AAA guys don’t get the “prospect” respect

The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib

by buddyball on Oct 18, 2008 6:04 PM EDT reply actions

Prospect means a likely candidate for a job or position.

Therefore Pena should be a top prospect, if we talking about the 25 man roster, because unless we trade for a catcher, it would seem that Pena is likely to make the team as the backup catcher. However, I think when we are talking about baseball prospects, we are (mostly) talking about starting jobs. Thus backup postion players don’t get high prospect rankings, and pitchers that are profiled as relievers and platoon players take a hit as well.
I have also pointed out that you need to decide if you are talking about starting jobs on the Major leauge level as a whole, or on current organization that the current player belongs to. Since we are debating who are the best Royals prospects without taking into account prospects on other teams, I would think that ranking them taking into account the starting postions on all 30 teams is much harder, but I don’t really see it as invalid way of looking at things. Players like Pena and Shealy are less valuable if you are looking at prospects from a probable starter for the entire leauge prospective.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Oct 18, 2008 6:32 PM EDT reply actions

To muddy the waters a little more...

Prosepect ranks are also be influenced by:
1. How well they will do thier job.
2. How long are they likely to have thier job.
3. How soon can they start doing the job.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Oct 18, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions

You are entitled to define "prospect" any way you want

But “likely to get major league playing time” is not how prospect analysts define prospect. Every year, prospect analysts who compile rankings have to deal with the issue of good prospects who are blocked at the major league level and mediocre prospects who are will likely be rushed to the major leagues because the team just happens to be weak there. These analysts always say that these factors have nothing to do with their ranking or grading of a prospect. Prospect evaluation and ranking is about how good they think a prospect is, not how deep or shallow an organization is.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2008 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions

its no

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Oct 18, 2008 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Its not my definition, its Websters.

How good the player is of course is the most important factor, never said that it wasn’t. But being “good” involves a lot of factors, most of which I have metioned. How much you wiegh those factors, GM of an organiztion looking at needs or a an analysts looking at all prospects from a wider view of how they stack up against eachother effects what ranks they have. As a fan, when they can help the team and if they can improve the team over other players in the organization has more wieght then a analyist would have. A player like Orlando that is top prospect in a postion where we will need help is more likely to play for KC then someone who is being blocked, by a superior player, and that factors into a rank I would give them. A prospect can be useful even if he is blocked with trade value, not having to resign the major leauge player because you have a pretty good backup behind him and so forth.
I am not saying the analyst approach is wrong, just that there are other approaches that have value. Obvioulsy need is less of an issue in baseball, since we have the farm system. In sports like football, however, need plays a much more important role, and no one would deny it. Drafting to fill certain postions with regards to who is more valuable to a particular team doesn’t disappear in baseball, its just not as important. Did having Frank White at second for so many devalue other 2B prospects for the Royals? It would be really hard to argue that it did not.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Oct 18, 2008 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Paulo Orlando

The Royals traded a guy with a 2.59 ERA for him, so he must be good.

by Gopherballs on Oct 18, 2008 9:35 PM EDT reply actions

scrapheap.

Maybe we can sign Horacio as a FA this offseason.

Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.

by 306008 on Oct 19, 2008 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions

am I crazy, but did I read a bunch of stuff by mgl that argued that

for evaluation over a number of years, that ERA is a better stat than FIP for judging “true talent?” Yikes

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by Matt Klaassen on Oct 19, 2008 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions

"Yikes" meaning

I’m not quite sure what to do with that

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by Matt Klaassen on Oct 19, 2008 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions

I voted Duffy.

I see the desire for Rosa, and almost went with him, but I loved Duffy’s K numbers in Low-A. Granted, it was only Low-A, but he was still young for the league.

I think Duffy has a better chance to become more of a high-impact sort of, #2/#3 starting pitcher, while Rosa profiles more, in my mind as a back-end starter. And while he is much closer to reaching the majors and much more likely to achieve his ‘peak’, I like going with potential, as long as it is backed up by scouts and/or statistics.

Again, it’s close, but I think Duffy is just better as a prospect.

by rockchalk on Oct 18, 2008 11:22 PM EDT reply actions

Rosa sliped quite a bit with the injury, I'm not sure he can pitch 200 innings. he may just be a reliever.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Oct 18, 2008 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions

while Rosa profiles more, in my mind as a back-end starter.

Why? I’m not saying that opinion is stupid or unsupportable, but I just don’t get it. What is it about Rosa that makes you feel that he’ll likely be just a back-of-the-rotation starter? I don’t see it. He’s shown great stuff and great control in the minors, including very good performances in both AA and AAA. I don’t see a guy with plus stuff and plus control as being a back-of-the-rotation starter. I see back-of-the-rotation starters as usually being guys with good stuff and poor control (like Davies) or mediocre stuff and pretty good control (Duckworth). Rosa just doesn’t fit either profile. What am I missing?

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 18, 2008 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions

I think

alot of people are turned off by Rosa’s injuries. I am with you that I think he is a 2/3 type. Maybe people think the injuries will take their toll on him and his velocity or command will falter which would then make him a back of the rotation guy or closer.

by gordonrules on Oct 19, 2008 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions

Most of it is his injury problems.

But some of it also has to do with simply a ‘feel’.

Although, looking at the BA listing of what classifies at each starter, he looks a lot more like a #3 than anyting else.

So, maybe I’m wrong. I’m certainly not married to my answer.

They are neck-and-neck, Duffy just gets the slight nod from me…

by rockchalk on Oct 19, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions

And I realize that 'feel' is kind of irrational and stupid.

II usually hate ‘feels’. So, feel free to disagree with me over that; I certainly would. The more I think about it, now, I might go Rosa. Taking ‘feelings’ out of it.

But, like I said, it is awfully close IMO…

by rockchalk on Oct 19, 2008 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions

"Feel" is fine

All prospects are speculative, so gut feelings count for something. But you said “looking at the BA listing of what classifies at each starter, he looks a lot more like a #3 than anything else.” Actually, going by their quick-and-dirty breakdown, he fits #2 most closely. His 3rd pitch might be a little light, but he has better than average command. So, going by that, he profiles as a #2.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by Scott McKinney on Oct 19, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions