What makes a good prospect?

[jmajew]

I've been looking at some former Cub prospects who were considered can't miss and i find myself scratching my head and wondering what makes a good prospect.

 

Corey Patterson

http://thebaseballcube.com/players/P/Corey-Patterson.shtml

He never once put up great numbers in the minors. So why did we assume he was going to be a great pro. Was it simply becasue he was so toolsy?

 

Kevin Orie

http://thebaseballcube.com/players/O/Kevin-Orie.shtml

He put up great numbers in the minors but for some reason was never able to make it in the pros. You can't blame the Cubs for having faith in this guy.

 

David Kelton

http://thebaseballcube.com/players/K/Dave-Kelton.shtml

This guy never once put up good numbers in the minors but for some unknown reason was at one point untradeable. I wish this could be explained to me.

 

Brian Dopirak

http://thebaseballcube.com/players/D/Brian-Dopirak.shtml

He put up one season of great numbers when he was 20. You can not blame the Cubs for expecting him to become a good ballplayer.

 

Matt Murton

http://thebaseballcube.com/players/M/Matt-Murton.shtml

He has put up good numbers at every level and has been performing well at the majors. Throughout his career in the minors he never hit for power but he was expected to in the majors. Seems pretty unrealistic and because he isn't for power he will probably be coming off the bench next year. Granted he is only 24 so his power could still develop, maybe even with a lil swing adjustment.

 

Ricky Nolasco

http://thebaseballcube.com/players/N/Ricky-Nolasco.shtml

He had great numbers in the minors. However, he got traded. My bet is we could have traded some other pitcher for Pierre and kept Nolasco. His ceiling may not have been as high as others so we were willing to give him up eventhough he will be a solic pro.

 

Felix Pie

http://thebaseballcube.com/players/P/Felix-Pie.shtml

He has put up good numbers at every level. Wouldn't it be safe to say he is a better prospect than Patterson was?

 

I just don't see how a player can be a top prospect when he didn't put up good numbers in the minors. Plus wouldn't it be safer if we drafted more College players. Granted Brownlie and Christiansen have failed, but they same to have a better track record. Look at the A's. Zito, Hudson, Mulder, Huston Street, Bobby Crosby, and Nick Swisher all went to college.

 

I'm just frustrated with the Cubs saying this young guys have so much potential even though they can't put up good numbers in the minors. I'm sick of potential. Why not go with the safer bets, guys who are older and have performed well in college.[/url]

Edited August 24, 2006 by jmajew

[Guest]

I'm wondering how you characterize Murton's numbers as great throughout his minor league career, but then say Patterson's 1999 was nothing special. Or Dopirak's numbers in Lansing as merely "good".

[jmajew]

I'm wondering how you characterize Murton's numbers as great throughout his minor league career, but then say Patterson's 1999 was nothing special. Or Dopirak's numbers in Lansing as merely "good".

 

I did make a mistake. Dopiraks numbers in Lansing were amazing for one year and has struggled since. Patterson had a good year in 1999 then in 2000 and 2001 put up horrible numbers. I would think the two bad years out weigh the one good one. When it comes to Murton he has put up good numbers at every level, the great was a poor choice of words.

[Guest]

I'm wondering how you characterize Murton's numbers as great throughout his minor league career, but then say Patterson's 1999 was nothing special. Or Dopirak's numbers in Lansing as merely "good".

 

I did make a mistake. Dopiraks numbers in Lansing were amazing for one year and has struggled since. Patterson had a good year in 1999 then in 2000 and 2001 put up horrible numbers. I would think the two bad years out weigh the one good one. When it comes to Murton he has put up good numbers at every level, the great was a poor choice of words.

As a 21 year old, second year player Corey put up an .829 OPS at West Tenn. It is true that his BA was low that season. But he drew just over a walk per 10 AB's (and got plunked an extra 10 times) & hit for very good power in a pitcher's league.

 

While not as outstanding as his 1999 campaign in Lansing, that was still a very successful season for someone his age with his level of experience.

[UMFan83]

In my opinion, you could make a list of prospects once considered 'can't miss' in every organization that never pan out. Not sure if the number is proportionally higher in the Cubs organization, but you can use the lack of position players the Cubs have producted over the last 30 years as a key indicator.

[jmajew]

I'm wondering how you characterize Murton's numbers as great throughout his minor league career, but then say Patterson's 1999 was nothing special. Or Dopirak's numbers in Lansing as merely "good".

 

I did make a mistake. Dopiraks numbers in Lansing were amazing for one year and has struggled since. Patterson had a good year in 1999 then in 2000 and 2001 put up horrible numbers. I would think the two bad years out weigh the one good one. When it comes to Murton he has put up good numbers at every level, the great was a poor choice of words.

As a 21 year old, second year player Corey put up an .829 OPS at West Tenn. It is true that his BA was low that season. But he drew just over a walk per 10 AB's (and got plunked an extra 10 times) & hit for very good power in a pitcher's league.

 

While not as outstanding as his 1999 campaign in Lansing, that was still a very successful season for someone his age with his level of experience.

 

However, how does his 2001 numbers warrant being called up and then in 2002 giving him the starting job? If he was that good of prospect was it that necessary to rush him up? Either way in my min the organization botched that up.

[UMFan83]

I'm wondering how you characterize Murton's numbers as great throughout his minor league career, but then say Patterson's 1999 was nothing special. Or Dopirak's numbers in Lansing as merely "good".

 

I did make a mistake. Dopiraks numbers in Lansing were amazing for one year and has struggled since. Patterson had a good year in 1999 then in 2000 and 2001 put up horrible numbers. I would think the two bad years out weigh the one good one. When it comes to Murton he has put up good numbers at every level, the great was a poor choice of words.

As a 21 year old, second year player Corey put up an .829 OPS at West Tenn. It is true that his BA was low that season. But he drew just over a walk per 10 AB's (and got plunked an extra 10 times) & hit for very good power in a pitcher's league.

 

While not as outstanding as his 1999 campaign in Lansing, that was still a very successful season for someone his age with his level of experience.

 

However, how does his 2001 numbers warrant being called up and then in 2002 giving him the starting job? If he was that good of prospect was it that necessary to rush him up? Either way in my min the organization botched that up.

 

I think he got called up likely because the Cubs were 'contending' in 2001 with Gary Matthews in CF who hit terribly. Thinking that they could win next year, and pleased with Corey's 4 HR and 14 RBI (Not hit barely over .600 OPS), they figured they would bring him up rather then sign a stop gap FA CF , leaving Corey without a spot to play.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

It's easy...the perfect can't miss prospect would do these things...

 

Position Player:

 

Have good to great power (at least 20 HR potential)

Have strong plate discipline (think Nick Johnson)

Field his position well

Have solid contact skills

 

 

Pitcher:

 

Post strong K/BB/HR rates through the minors

have an above average to plus fastball

have at least one non-fastball outpitch

have a useable change

 

* If they are less than 6'3 they should be built along the lines of Ben Sheets/Chad Billingsley/Jeremy Bonderman...a bit more filled out than guys like Prior.

 

Most of those guys up there had some kind of flaw, mostly plate discipline.

[Guest]

I'm wondering how you characterize Murton's numbers as great throughout his minor league career, but then say Patterson's 1999 was nothing special. Or Dopirak's numbers in Lansing as merely "good".

 

I did make a mistake. Dopiraks numbers in Lansing were amazing for one year and has struggled since. Patterson had a good year in 1999 then in 2000 and 2001 put up horrible numbers. I would think the two bad years out weigh the one good one. When it comes to Murton he has put up good numbers at every level, the great was a poor choice of words.

As a 21 year old, second year player Corey put up an .829 OPS at West Tenn. It is true that his BA was low that season. But he drew just over a walk per 10 AB's (and got plunked an extra 10 times) & hit for very good power in a pitcher's league.

 

While not as outstanding as his 1999 campaign in Lansing, that was still a very successful season for someone his age with his level of experience.

 

However, how does his 2001 numbers warrant being called up and then in 2002 giving him the starting job? If he was that good of prospect was it that necessary to rush him up? Either way in my min the organization botched that up.

Oh sure, I agree that he got rushed after a mediocre AAA performance that should have told the team he needed more time. But that doesn't change the fact that Corey was one heck of a prospect and had the results to back that up his first couple years in the minors.

[Rob]

What makes a good prospect?

 

As far as I'm concerned... being young for the league might be the most important indicator.

 

It indicates plenty of past success, or else, hey... you wouldn't have been put in that league. At the same time, it also allows the player the most time to develop... whether at the same level or at the major league level.

 

Players like Delmon Young, who can more than hold their own against AAA pitching at age 20... it's just hard to find players like that who never manage to pan out.

 

But you'll find plenty of guys like Kevin Orie who were old for the leagues, mashed, but never could figure it out when they finally had to face harder pitching and face a fairly strict timetable for breaking into the league.

[goonys evil twin]

As far as I'm concerned... being young for the league might be the most important indicator.

 

It indicates plenty of past success, or else, hey... you wouldn't have been put in that league.

 

That's just not true. The Cubs have promoted plenty of guys to the next level without any semblence of success behind them.

[Rob]

As far as I'm concerned... being young for the league might be the most important indicator.

 

It indicates plenty of past success, or else, hey... you wouldn't have been put in that league.

 

That's just not true. The Cubs have promoted plenty of guys to the next level without any semblence of success behind them.

 

Perhaps I should clarify...

 

In the farm systems of teams that have a clue, age relative to level is worth looking at.