Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Kentucky Football: Tee Martin Reportedly Leaving for USC

Top 10 outfield prospects

Yep it's Saturday night and I'm bored. So here goes. Did not include Maier, but he would have been #2 if included.

1) Derrick Robinson, CF
Age: 20 | Team: Wilmington Blue Rocks (High A)
2008 Vital Line: .245/.317/.321, 92/49 K/BB


Yea, yea. I know. "The next Joey Gathright." I don't think that though.

Robinson's bat speed blows Gathright's out of the water, and I think he's going to develop Kenny Lofton type power. Take a look at Lofton's stats throughout the minors. Yep, Robinson has actually shown more power than Lofton did at the same point in their careers, and Lofton's power as we know it didn't really start to show until he was 23. He's been drawing way more walks the past couple months, which is obviously essential for a leadoff hitter. His speed is well documented, he's stolen 61 bases on the year. He's used that speed to turn into a stud defender in center field as well, which will serve him well with the huge outfield at Kaufman Stadium.

One thing to consider is that although he was drafted as a switch hitter, and because he was a very prominant football player, he's hitting from the left side was very, very weak at the time. His OPS to date this year is .100 points higher from the right side of the plate than the left side. Again, this is another thing the Royals just think is a matter of time thing.

Remember, this was a very raw, yet talented, athlete that we drafted back in '06 in the fourth round. There was a reason some of the scouts in the draft room were PO'd that they passed on him in the third round. I think it's just a matter of time before he breaks out. It's going to reflect in my offseason rankings of Royals prospects too, I have a feeling I'll be ranking him higher than most.

Best case scenario? Again, something like Kenny Lofton or Carl Crawford with better plate discipline offensively, with game changing speed on the bases and in the outfield. I think this is the kind of guy Dayton Moore wants in center field and at the top of the lineup. We know he cares about defense, and a guy like Robinson makes it easier to put defensive deficiencies in corner outfield spots.

2. Joseph Dickerson, LF
Age: 21 | Team: Wilmington Blue Rocks
2008 Vital Line: .297/.376/.442, 48/31 K/BB


Now you're probably wonder why I ranked Dickerson below Robinson despite popular opinion, but if you look up Joe Dickerson in the dictionary, it will say "see Tweener."

Yep. Basically, Dickerson doesn't play center field particularly well, and he doesn't really have the power you want out of a corner guy. He does have a chance to keep hitting .300 (which is what he needs to do to stay on the map) since he doesn't strike out much, but it's certainly not guarantee.

He's been injured since the middle of July, but he's going to play in the AFL where we'll get a chance to see what he does against better competition. Best case scenario, for me anyways, is David DeJesus with a tad more speed in a corner OF spot. Not great, but certainly acceptable.

3. David Lough, CF
Age: 22 | Team: Burlington Bees
2008 Vital Line: .270/.327/.465, 66/31 K/BB


Might be a surprise here. Lough plays a legitimate center field, has speed, and has power. The speed translates better in the outfield than it does on the bases (and he's admitted this is something he needs to work on). But the power is extremely impressive for a center field in the Midwest League, and he's been on an absolute power binge in the month of August.

This was a guy that went to college on a football scholership, and had to get permission from his coach just to play baseball. I think he's a guy that as he continues to play baseball fulltime (rather than splitting time with football), he's going to keep getting better.

I think he's got more upside than Dickerson, and best case scenario for him is a player similar to Nate McLouth.

4. Paulo Orlando, CF
Age: 22 | Team: Wilmington Blue Rocks
2008 Vital Line: .263/.309/.419, 109/25 K/BB


This is completely based on upside. He's got strike zone judgment issues (big time), but it's really not that out of the ordinary from a player that hasn't played much baseball, let alone be from a country where it isn't big (Brazil). But he's got excellent tools -- he's an outstanding defender and has game changing offensive tools.

Upside? Carl Crawford. Chances of reaching that ceiling? Oh, about 5-10%.

5. Brian McFall, RF
Age: 24 | Team: Northwest Arkansas Naturals
2008 Vital Line: .245/.337/.465, 93/37 K/BB


At this point it's really a matter of preference. McFall is very similar to Chris Lubanski, though he's got more playable tools and has better bat speed. McFall is a good athlete who has excellent raw power but has trouble against quality breaking stuff. He can play defense and has a hell of an arm (IIRC) from right field.

Best case scenario? He makes some strides against breaking pitches, makes more consistent contact, and becomes a Jose Guillen (pre this year) type player. But he's already 24, hasn't made many strides yet. Chances of it happening are very low.

6. Hilton Richardson, CF
Age: 19 | Team: Burlington Royals/AZL Royals
2008 Vital Line: .249/.308/.359, 63/18 K/BB


Richardson was the 7th round pick last year, extremely raw player, but he's big and fast and in other words, just has a ton of projection about him. The stolen base totals (10-for-17 don't really indicate how fast he is, he was rated a 70 runner by Baseball America which is plus-plus. He's got a ton of work to do in his game, but has a chance to be a special player if he puts it together.

Oh, and the reason he's playing for AZL now is he's starting community college in Arizona. Was not a demotion in the meaning of the word.

7. Chris Lubanski, LF
Age: 23 | Team: Omaha Royals
2008 Vital Line: .233/.296/.430, 126/35 K/BB


OK, so I haven't completely given up on him, but I'm close. I don't think he'd rank in my top 30 anymore, and in hindsight, #16 was way too high just two months ago. Lubanski has power, and that's his only plus tool anymore. But he has a relatively slow bat and the power mostly comes from the fact that he's a big dude. He can't hit a good breaking pitch, nor can he hit lefties at all. Lubanski's actually gotten too big I think, because he can hardly run at all anymore.

Best case scenario? He learns first base and can fill in at 1B/LF/RF against RHP off the bench.

8. Adrian Ortiz, CF
Age: 21 | Team: Burlington Bees/Wilmington Blue Rocks
2008 Vital Line: .306/.342/.384, 77/22 K/BB


I would like Ortiz a lot more if he would just take a walk here and there, but he doesn't. Ortiz is a good hitter, makes contact, can occasionally put some pop into one, and has really, really good speed. Like David Lough, the speed plays better in the outfield than on the paths, but he's working on it.

9. Nick Francis, RF
Age: 22 | Team: Idaho Falls Chukars/Burlington Bees
2008 Vital Line: .292/.373/.480, 60/24 K/BB


Francis didn't play last year, as part of the group that got suspended for violating team rules. But he's back on the field this year and showing why the Royals selected him in the draft in '06. Francis has got intriguing raw power and good athleticism. In a system that doesn't have much power, this is a guy to watch out for next year.

10. Alex Llanos, CF
Age: 17 | Team: AZL Royals
2008 Vital Line: .188/.244/.238, 53/11 K/BB


Llanos was the sixth round pick this year, and obviously his stats are quite horrible. But he's similar to Hilton Richardson -- good frame, good bat speed, is at least a 65 runner on the scouting scale, and could develop into a good defender (he just moved to CF). Has the tools to be good.

Comment 73 comments  |  4 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

How much do you know about Llanos?

I know very little about him. I just would have thought that with his draft position, he’d have the tools to be higher on this list.

Also, I’d put Dickerson over Robinson on this list. I think Dickerson will most likely become a 4th OFer, while Robinson will most likely be a 5th OFer, defensive replacement, pinch runner.

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

by Scott McKinney on Aug 24, 2008 3:46 AM EDT reply actions  

Llanos

I know almost nothing about him besides pre draft scouting reports. He’s not doing himself any favors by putting up a TPJ type line (I know…doesn’t really matter yet). Basically when I got to 8 on this list it was kinda random.

And yea…I really think Robinson is going to be a very good player. Leadoff hitter…300/.370/.400, plugs the gaps for doubles and triples, occasional homer, 50-60 stolen bases, and excellent defense. That’s just my opinion…

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Aug 24, 2008 5:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

I hope you're right about Robinson

Scouts seem to love him, but he just seems terrible to me. The Crawford/Lofton comparisons seemed far fetched, so I decided to check it out.

Crawford’s actually a pretty bad comparison — he was already up in AAA at age 20 and slugging .450.

But guess what? I looked at Lofton, and the guy was terrible — posting very DRobinson-esque numbers in the minors, not really having a successful season until age 23, in high A ball. And it wasn’t really until he was 26 until what you would call a productive season in the majors. So he very well could be on the Lofton career path, and I’ll try to temper my criticism of the guy a bit.

I am curious, though, how many major league regulars have had a similar career arc? I’m guessing it’s not many, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. At the very least, we should have a Tom Goodwin-type player on our hands in a few years, which isn’t exactly valuable, but it’s not worthless, either.

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Aug 24, 2008 8:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

Kenny Lofton was so bad

He was offered to the Royals in a trade for Brent Mayne.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 24, 2008 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions  

There's a reason that prospect analysts weigh tools at least as much as performance when evaluating minor leaguers

Performance in the the low minors for less than 1000 ABs when a player is 20 or younger doesn’t really tell you a great deal about what you can expect from him in the future. Even prospect analysts at BP weigh skills/tools and body type/size as highly as performance in evaluating prospects. For a very young guy in the low minors, I’m sure tools are more important than performance.

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

by Scott McKinney on Aug 24, 2008 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

That list shows an alarming lack of power.

Only 3 ot the top 10 OF’s slugging over 450. Sounds like we have a fair amount of toolsy centerfielders though so if one or two fill out and add power that would make them very valuable with the speed and defense pluses.

by djk royal on Aug 24, 2008 9:29 AM EDT reply actions  

Thanks for putting this together

But its awfully depressing.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 24, 2008 11:55 AM EDT reply actions  

+1

Soo…can we sign someone who can hit?

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Aug 24, 2008 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thoughts on Nick Van Stratten?

I liked him when he was drafted, and he’s put up good numbers everywhere, but he’s always been awfully old for his level. Any kind of upside here at all?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 24, 2008 11:57 AM EDT reply actions  

He's Nick Van Stratten, rush chairman

and he’s damned glad to meet you. If that’s not upside, I don’t know what is.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Aug 24, 2008 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

To me, the only thing that matters

is where these guys fall in the overall (e.g. Baseball America) rankings. If our #1 guy isn’t even in the top 100 prospects overall, that’s pretty depressing.

At this point, I don’t really see anything to get excited about, but it’s still early for most of them.

I hereby resign from this post.

by Home Run Tony Cogan on Aug 24, 2008 10:39 PM EDT reply actions  

We don't have any OF prospects in BA's top 100, but...

We have 4-5 prospects who will be in BA’s top 100

Hosmer, 1B/OF
Moustakas, 3B/SS
Cortes, RHP
Melville, RHP
Rosa, RHP

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

by Scott McKinney on Aug 24, 2008 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

(ahem)

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

by Matt Klaassen on Aug 24, 2008 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Aug 25, 2008 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

I could be wrong,

but I would be pretty surprised to see Cortes, Melville and Rosa among the top-100 prospects. Hosmer probably will not have a single at bat this year so who knows. And even after his second half surge Moustakas still did not have an outstanding year. I guess Moustakas and Hosmer will be in the top-100, but more due to projection than production.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Aug 30, 2008 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

i thought hosmer has already played

and played well

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Aug 30, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Moose will be top 25

He was #22 in BA’s midseason list, and he’s done nothing but KILL the ball since that list came out. I think he has a shot to be top 10. Hosmer? Who knows, but probably top 50 like most top 5 picks (non-stupid picks division like PIT last year).

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Aug 30, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think you are definitely wrong

Cortes is a lock for the top 100. Hosmer was the #3 overall pick, so he’ll be in the top 100. It doesn’t matter how many professional at bats he gets this year. Melville has a good shot to make the list as BA said he was a mid-first round talent and the best HS pitcher in the draft. Rosa could be top 100, but probably won’t be. Moustakas definitely will be in the top 25 and by all accounts definitely deserves to be there based on production. Have you seen what he’s done in an extreme pitcher’s league at age 19?

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

by Scott McKinney on Aug 30, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

OF depth reflects the organization

Good depth in the lower minors – incredibly thin at the upper levels -

Lubanski and McFall in the top 10 say a lot about how poorly the team acquired talent in the past. McFall looks like he has the tools – great arm, power, and some speed but still bats .245. His K/BB has improved over past few season – that’s a good sign.

Lower minors reflect GMDM’s emphasis on speed and athletes. His drafts have shown this with guys like Richardson, Llanos, Testa, Norris, Ortiz, Dyson, Lough & Robinson. Those guys can run and cover the ground. Really lacking power in the OF. Lough has really come in the power dept. at Burlington. Dickerson looked good this year until injury but have read that scouts are mixed on his potential. Orlando has a blend of power and speed that could pay off – hope KC will continue to allow him to develop and improve.

Would like to see Derrick Robinson repeat at Wilmington for start of 09. His speed and defense are impressive but hitting still needs work. Wilmington OF of Lough, D. Robinson and Ortiz could cover some serious ground.

Like most things in Royals organization – it is better than it was but has a long way to go for a consistently winning team

by daveyork on Aug 25, 2008 5:41 PM EDT reply actions  

I don't even like our depth in the lower minors

Seems like a bunch of toolsy guys without power. I’m not really optimistic any of them become starters, let alone impact players.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 25, 2008 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

How is a guy toolsy if they don't have power?

Some of them are pure speed guys — Pat Norris, Jarrod Dyson, Adrian Ortiz
Others, you can project for at least some power — Derrick Robinson, Hilton Richardson, Alex Llanos
Others are athletic AND have present power — David Lough, Carlo Testa, Nick Francis

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Aug 25, 2008 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Power isn't the only tool, obviously

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Aug 26, 2008 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sure

But normally in prospect talk, “toolsy” is a guy that’s fast and has some projectable power.

Or maybe I’m nuts. That’s how I view it though.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Aug 26, 2008 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

You're not nuts

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Aug 26, 2008 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

You sure about that? ;-)

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Aug 26, 2008 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

In my expert opinion,

take two aspirin and blog again in the morning. :P

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Aug 26, 2008 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

My definition of "toolsy"

a guy who physically seems like he will eventually be good because it seems like he was born with some skills, but so far he is mostly potential not results.

I don’t think “toolsy” can be seen as more than a back hand compliment at best. Joey Gathright is still kinda “toolsy.” So is Jason Smith.

I am pretty sick of “toolsy” players and would rather see some actual producers. Two years ago Costa and Lubanski would have been rated much higher than everyone on this list, and neither have helped out the big club yet. I think the Royal would be lucky if even one of these guys became a major league regular ever.

Yeah, I am a bit pessimistic about the Royals minor league outfielders. And I think Dayton Moore is actually doing worse here than Alan Baird.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Aug 30, 2008 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

Oh,

2Xsticks, thanks for putting this together. It is good stuff.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Aug 30, 2008 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

That isn't how any prospect analyst uses the word "toolsy"

You won’t hear or read any scout, front office staffer or contributor to Baseball America use “toolsy” in that manner. “Toolsy” means the prospect has good tools. That is a good thing, period.

And I think Dayton Moore is actually doing worse here than Alan Baird.

Overall, or just with regard to OF prospects?

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

by Scott McKinney on Aug 30, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

So you are saying we need to come up with a new term?

How about something like “Washoolsy”. A combination of washed up and toolsy. Or “Notoolsy”. A combination of not ever going to make it but still has tools.

Nothing great is coming to mind. Help!

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

by 306008 on Aug 31, 2008 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

I thought there already was a term for that

“Grit”

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Aug 31, 2008 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Washed up and toolsy?

dbrownesque

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

by Matt Klaassen on Aug 31, 2008 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think, "kinda-crappy" works

I’ve gotten to the point where I halfway give up on a player as soon as I hear him called “toolsy.” Toolsy seems to be used as a phrase of excuse in this organization. “Well, he has horrible plate disipline, he hits for no power, and he makes a ton of errors…. but he’s young and TOOOLSY. Let’s give him some time and hype him up.”

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Sep 1, 2008 4:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, we should ignore tools in prospects

Prospects with good tools suck.

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

by Scott McKinney on Sep 1, 2008 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think that's what he said

The thing is, a lot of the time when prospects don’t perform or don’t convert their tools into actual baseball skills, they’ll still be referred to as “toolsy.” Of course that label isn’t bad, it’s when you see “toolsy” used an excuse for the absence of real progress that’s bad.

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Sep 1, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's poor usage

“Toolsy” means the prospect has good tools. Now, toolsy prospects can succeed or they can fail. It isn’t an excuse; it is a description. And for someone to look at a 20-year-old in A-ball and say that “toolsy” means that he’s crappy because he doesn’t have good results yet is really horrible prospect analysis. Being toolsy is a good thing. Every prospect analyst will tell you that for a young player in the low minors, tools are much more important than stats. So, to not like toolsy prospects or to think that “toolsy” is somehow an insult is to not understand the term or prospects or both.

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

by Scott McKinney on Sep 1, 2008 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Tim Beckham is toolsy

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUST!

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Sep 1, 2008 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Right

I’m saying that a lot of people abuse the word “toolsy” in kind of the same way the word “gritty” gets used.

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Sep 1, 2008 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't know about that

When people use that word, I don’t think they are just throwing it around. They are describing something real. And, more importantly, being “toolsy” means something, something very real: having good tools. Whereas, “gritty” means nothing. It is a nebulous intangible that is about as real as the Easter Bunny.

So, to me, saying “I don’t like toolsy prospects” is like saying “I don’t like prospects with good bat speed athleticism or defensive range.” Similarly not like the word “toolsy” is like not liking the phrase “good bat speed.”

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

by Scott McKinney on Sep 1, 2008 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

I guess "gritty" was a bad comparison

and you know I agree that “tools” and “toolsy” have their place in prospect lingo, I just think that in some circles the word gets abused as an excuse (for whatever reason) for a player who isn’t producing. You won’t find that happen with good analysis, of course.

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Sep 1, 2008 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

One problem

….is that for some people, when they see that a player has poor stats and is referred to as “toolsy” or having good tools, they assume it is an excuse as opposed to a description of reality. That would be a poor assumption.

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

by Scott McKinney on Sep 1, 2008 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yep

I’m not assuming, I’m just saying it DOES happen and I wonder if that’s what JQ was referring to.

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Sep 1, 2008 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Unfortunately JQ basically wrote the term off as no more than a backhanded compliment

In reality, being toolsy for a young prospect in the low minors, having good tools is more important than having good stats. Guys who do well in the low minors with poor skills/tools have less of a chance of succeeding that prospects with good tools who haven’t gotten the results yet (see Rowdy Hardy).

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

by Scott McKinney on Sep 1, 2008 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's just your opinion

you could easily be wrong. :P

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Sep 1, 2008 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

No, apparently NYRoyal

is in charge of defining words correctly. I’m glad he set me straight. I’ll use this made-up word properly in the future.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Sep 2, 2008 4:28 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

It's just jargon that is used in the industry

And it has a meaning. I didn’t make up the word or it’s definition. I’m just relaying how it is used by prospect analysts.

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

by Scott McKinney on Sep 2, 2008 5:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

I know it is jargon,

I just do not have any reason to think you know who to use the jargon “properly” moreso than anyone else here.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Sep 2, 2008 5:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm just talking about how prospect analysts use it

Guys like Sickels, Callis, Goldstein and others at BA, BP, Scouts.com and elsewhere.

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

by Scott McKinney on Sep 2, 2008 6:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

And I'm just saying

that it is not up to you to determine how prospect analysts use the term and tell other people they are using the terms incorrectly. Again, I just do not have any reason to think you know how to use the jargon “properly” moreso than anyone else here.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Sep 2, 2008 6:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

I was just disagreeing with your interpretation

You offered a definition of “toolsy” and I countered with my opinion and interpretation of the word as it is used by people whose business it is to talk about, analyze and evaluate prospects. If it is appropriate for you to share your opinion of what the word means, then I’m sure it is appropriate for others to do so as well.

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

by Scott McKinney on Sep 2, 2008 6:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yuck

 I’ll admit that some of these guys could pan out in the long run, Robinson could become the next Kenny Lofton, but the reality is that prospects fail more often than not, and all of the guys on list have shown nothing so far that indicates they can be successful at the MLB level.

This is an outright depressing list no matter who you put on top. This list is Exhibit A to my argument that at some point, the Royals are going to have to trade some of the impressive pitching depth they have accumulated in the minors for offense.

True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.

by DC Royal on Aug 26, 2008 4:49 PM EDT reply actions  

I think everyone agrees with that argument

…probably even Dayton Moore. He called it the currency of baseball for a reason.

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

by Scott McKinney on Aug 26, 2008 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

More on Derrick Robinson

I think they view him kind of like Carlos Beltran. No, I’m not comparing the two exactly, but they were both very talented yet raw players. Once everything clicked for Beltran, he was in the big leagues in no time and was producing right away.

I think in that way, Robinson is very similar. Once he has that feel for the game that they (and I) think he’ll get simply with more playing time, then he could move through the system very quickly. Once a freak athlete like him has the light bulb turn on, good things start to happen. I think it’s just a matter of “when” and not “if” that bulb turns on. I think it’s starting to happen with the recent uptick in walks. He’s getting a better feel for the strike zone. That’s a great sign for his future (like Gordon, kinda).

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Aug 26, 2008 6:22 PM EDT reply actions  

Carlos Beltran was one of those toolsy OF prospects without much in the way of results in A-ball

1995 18 GCL Royals (Rookie) .278/.332/.328
1996 19 Spokan (low-A) .270/.359/.433
            19 Lansing (A) .143/.163/.190
1997 20 Wilmington (high-A) .229/.311/.363
1998 21 Wilington (high-A) .276/.364/.427

Toolsy, athletic guys with projection usually don’t just show up in the minors in their teens or even early 20’s and just start raking right away. They have to grow as players and develop. I know that if this were 1998, most Royals fans would be saying that Beltran is just a toolsy piece of crap who will never be anything.

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

by Scott McKinney on Aug 26, 2008 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly.

Maybe I’ll be dead wrong about Robinson and he’ll never break out. I was pretty wrong about Chris Nicoll, who I thought would be a Scott Baker type and in the rotation by now (although he still has a shot to be a useful reliever).

Plus, I want my list this winter to stand out a little bit from others.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Aug 26, 2008 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

I get the feeling...

…from some of the analyses I’ve seen of our “toolsy” prospects in the low minors from people on this site that they think if a prospect isn’t raking in A-ball at age 21, then he stinks and he’s a low-ceiling schlub who’ll probably be out of baseball in a year or two. Sure some major leaguers developed by raking at a young age in the low minors, but most don’t follow that path.

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

by Scott McKinney on Aug 26, 2008 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Just like some think

That if you’re 24 and repeated a level, you’re washed up despite your league leading numbers.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 27, 2008 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Gordon has stagnated!

Despite his improvement this year, he’s repeating his level!

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

by Matt Klaassen on Aug 27, 2008 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Who thinks that?

Did I ever say that I thought Kaaihue was “washed up”? No. I, and others (including you, I think) thought early in the season that he wasn’t much of a prospect. A great full season at 24 has made him look like a much better prospect. Are are you talking about my opinion of a 27-year-old repeating a level for the third time? People with that profile rarely succeed. You yourself have done some research on that which showed how rare it is. So that kind of career profile is rare. It isn’t so rare for toolsy prospects in the low minors who are very young to eventually become good major leaguers.

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

by Scott McKinney on Aug 27, 2008 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

And conversely

I don’t think anyone here said that these outfielder stink and are low ceiling schlubs. I think most of the opinions are that they haven’t produced much and we are pessimistic that they will turn into much.

It isn’t rare for toolsy outfielders to develop late, but it also isn’t likely that toolsy outfielders who produce below average numbers in the low minors will turn into much.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 27, 2008 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

I was speaking to the comments made throughout this site...

…that our toolsy OF prospects suck. Basically all of the “toolsy” prospects in the low minors are written off as non-prospects or marginal prospects at best (as if having good tools at age 18-21 is a bad thing). My problem is that this analysis looks only at their stats and ignores their tools/skills, which is really awful, half-assed prospect analysis. I agree that the above prospects aren’t great and I’m not optimistic that they’ll turn into decent major leaguers (because the vast majority of prospects, even top prospects, don’t pan out). But to write off young prospects with good tools as essentially non-prospects is just plain wrong.

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

by Scott McKinney on Aug 27, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not really sure what you're talking about

Every comment in this thread is “our outfielders haven’t looked very good, but its early.”

No one is outright saying they suck and we should write them off.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 27, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

As I said, I'm not really talking about this thread

I’m talking more about the sentiment expressed by Marbotty that the Royals have two good position player prospects and everybody else is crap. While that particular statement is more extreme than most, it seemed somewhat representative of the feeling about our “toolsy prospects.” During and immediately following the draft, there was a lot of complaining about the Royals drafting more “toolsy prospects.” That kind of “analysis” devalues both tools and prospects who have them. And that doesn’t really make any sense.

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

by Scott McKinney on Aug 27, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

?????

Are you talking about Marbotty in this thread or elsewhere? In this thread he seems to be saying “these guys don’t look good, but neither did Kenny Lofton, this could be a similar career arc.” If you’re talking about elsewhere, why complain about it now? Marbotty seems to be agreeing with you that we should have patience – guys like Lofton developed slowly. Or did you just want to grind your ax?

I mean, I guess I understand your criticisms, just seems odd to complain about it here, when most every poster is saying “these guys haven’t put up numbers, but let’s be patient.”

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 27, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Are you talking about Marbotty in this thread or elsewhere?

Elsewhere

If you’re talking about elsewhere, why complain about it now?

I’m not complaining about it. I’m using it as an example of a sentiment I’ve seen frequently on this site.

Or did you just want to grind your ax?

Maybe I wanted to point out that it is good for prospects to be “toolsy” and that we shouldn’t expect them to be necessarily raking at age 18-21 in the low minors. It seems like that’s the main point I’ve been making over and over in this thread. It’s more about that than “complaining” about anything. I’m done.

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

by Scott McKinney on Aug 27, 2008 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm only excited by about 2 or 3

but there are probably about 10-15 guys that have at least the upside to make the majors at some point.

I don’t think I could give a very good estimate of how many actually will make the majors. It would help if more of the younger guys started hitting.

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Aug 28, 2008 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Who is Brett Bigler?

I noticed he got promoted to AAA, and is hitting fairly well in limited playing time. He’s only 23. I don’t know why he skipped AA or whether he is really a prospect or not. He was drafted in the 7th round in 2006 from UC-Riverside. Does anybody else have more info on this guy?

by KCBear on Aug 26, 2008 10:37 PM EDT reply actions  

I must have more generous "recent posts" settings than others

there’s a thread on Bigler right here

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

by Matt Klaassen on Aug 26, 2008 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

The_laz_small
RRCCA Vol. IV -- Before You Was Born
293205_10100249842300990_16917861_47946787_6111553_n_small
8 Items You Might Not Know Existed but Probably Need from The Official Online Store of the Kansas City Royals
293205_10100249842300990_16917861_47946787_6111553_n_small
6 Items You Don't Need From The Official Online Shop of the Kansas City Royals
Nacho_small
Interview with Royals Review Editor Jeff Zimmerman
Small
OT: Determining the exact date of Ice Cubes "Good Day"

Recent FanPosts

The_laz_small
RRCCA Vol. IV -- "Before You Was Born" -- The playlist
Finished_pug_small
Dayton Moore trivia time
273440_1587063989_3272169_n_small
Ya Want Hope & Faith?
Small
Royals.com to webcast all KC Spring Training games
Small
How much for McClutch? You like what I did there?
Specialk2_small
RoyalsReview Fantasy League
Royalsretro_small
Is This the End of the Line for Ross Gload?
Nyroyal3a_small
Royals Rotation Projections
Cimg0036_small
Valentine Poem of the Week: An Arundel Tomb
Small
Jonathan Sanchez and the blogosphere that can never be pleased

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Cimg0036_small Freneau

Editors

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

Authors

Royalsretro_small RoyalsRetro

Headshot_small Old Man Duggan