Prospect Lists - Phillies and Overall - 2022-2025

[allentown]

If they're still a bottom ten system in two years - FAIL. If they're top ten, SUCCESS

Top 10 would certainly be SUCCESS, but you need to be more granular than that, looking at different aspects (draft, LA, rest of international, minor leagues development, DR academy, training and nutrition at all levels)

[andyb]

The system could be doing very well and still be a bottom 10 system in 2 years. We would be dead last now without Painter and Abel and McGarry and they all are going to graduate, potentially this season. We are also drafting last and missing picks and international allocations.

If we can remain around the 22-25 range that would actually be success. I fear they have not done enough internationally to have a great shot at that. Barber seems better than Almaraz and Mattingly is saying the right things. But we really have not overhauled our Latin American organization recently (and no, building new complexes is what everybody has done). Signing the right players is our current weakness there.

[zambonir]

I don't find that latest list discouraging only inasmuch as it is nothing that we didn't already know.

[andyb]

Fangraphs is doing their prospect week. Mostly updating global rankings rather than team rankings. Here is their international board with the first additions to the 2024 international signing class (no Phillies agreements among the first 6 players listed though remember we lose a million from our allocation for 2024 with Turner).

Updating the International Player Rankings

[Austinfan]

In two years, they'll have 4 drafts and LA classes to work with, if you're not producing top prospects, i.e., we're seeing players in Reading and Lehigh who are a year or two away, then it's a "fail."

Top systems don't just turn 1st rd picks into players, they optimize development along a full portfolio of prospects.
It's not just "don't ruin Painter," it's hitting a couple doubles and a HR with arms like Baker, McGarry, Abel, etc.

We're used to a mediocre system that in its best stretch hit on a number of 1st rd picks and a couple later rd picks (Rollins 2nd, Howard 5th, Madson 9th over a half dozen or more years - and in the bad stretch from 2008-2017 managed to miss on more 1st rd picks than they hit without finding many hidden gems.
Players 1+ WAR

2019: Stott 1.3 (#14)
2017: Brodgon 2.2 (10th)
2016: Irvin 3.0 (5th)
2015: Falter 1.2 (5th)
2014: Nola 29.6 (#7), Hoskins 11.1 (5th)
2013: Crawford 10.7 (#16), Biggio 6.3 (29th)
2012:
2011: Morgan 1.1 (3rd), Giles 7.5 (7th), Freeland 16.4 (35th)
2010: Rupp 2.9 (3rd),
2009: Altherr 1.6 (9th), Ruf 1.5 (20th)
2008 Gose 2.0 (2nd), Worley 5.0 (3rd), May 2.6 (4th), Weber 1.0 (12th), Broxton 3.6 (29th)

[andyb]

It is kind of obvious that to be a top system one needs to turn a significant number of lower round picks and international signings into players. Our system is bad because we have not done this. But that does not diminish the importance of number one picks. Our system might rank last if Painter and Abel did not look like good picks. Barber does need more time to fully evaluate his drafts, but his number ones look pretty good so far.

Rankings matter every single year. I am pretty sure you posted that they did not matter early in Klentak's reign. Almaraz pre-dated him by a year and in hindsight was an utter disaster leading the draft. Randolph was a horrible pick (from day 1 when he immediately moved to LF). 2016 was the worst 1-1 pool draft results one could imagine. Haseley was a "safe" pick where we paid over slot (why??????) and still did not make it. Bohm is really a disappointment at that high in the draft.

All this went on as our international program cratered in terms of the prospects it generated. The problem is not spending money. It is spending money on the right players and not overpaying so you have more money for other players.

But rankings DO matter every year. The Dodgers manage to do this without too many high picks. Barber has been good at number one picks so far, but he really needs to develop 5 prospects a year to keep pace with the top systems. We have a really bad system without Painter and Abel. Barber has not hit on enough picks yet to change that.

[Austinfan]

It takes 3-4 years to know if a draft is good, and longer for LA.

LA players tend to be 17 the summer after signing, 1 year in DSL, 1-2 years in GCL, then they should start moving up the ladder. So by 21, they should be in Clearwater, 22 in Lakewood.
HS kids are 18, 1-2 years GCL, 1-2 years Clearwater, so if they're for real, Lakewood by 21-22.

Only the college juniors should make an impact in their 2nd season, and even then, only the top picks b/c the others fell for a reason - and that's where development comes in. First season is usually a wash, pitchers need to be shut down after a college season and hitters have to adjust to wood bats.

So while the 1st rd picks should be obvious hit or miss in a couple years (Abel needs polishing, but the talent is self-evident), the rest of the draft/signings take a while even with good scouting and development to bear fruit.

[Squire]

New BA Top 30

1. Painter RHP
2. Abel RHP
3. McGarry RHP
4. Crawford OF
5. Rojas OF
6. Lee INF
7. Rincones OF
8. Muzziotti OF
9. Wilson OF
10. McFarlane RHP
11. Baker RHP
12. Morales RHP
13. Bergolla SS
14. Caba SS
15. Viars OF
16. Crouse RHP
17. Perez C
18. McGowan RHP
19. Ottenbreit RHP
20. De La Cruz OF
21. Estanista RHP
22. Ortiz OF
23. Boyd OF
24. Garcia OF
25. Kerkering RHP
26. Marchan C
27. Rao RHP
28. Segura RHP
29. McCollum RHP
30. Song RHP

[zambonir]

It takes 3-4 years to know if a draft is good, and longer for LA.

It does and it doesn't. If the players are good you already know plenty about them after 1-2 years (as is the case with the three pitchers)... and all 30 teams have the same issue, when being ranked!

And the 2020 draft, while a bit of a mulligan given it was both Barber's first and because of COVID, is especially easy to evaluate. And again, all 30 teams had to deal with that same small size.

For sure the tale won't be fully told on the current system for another 2, 3 or even 4 years. But that's also why in the meantime they will continue signing free agents or making trades. If this system had been good in 2020 they wouldn't need Turner or Marsh. Right now there isn't even anyone to step in over the next two seasons besides Rojas, including to replace Hoskins or if another current starter besides Marsh doesn't work out (be they young or old).

[andyb]

Nobody disputes that it takes years to evaluate a draft. You have been making this point every year for over a decade to say the Phillies system is better than its rankings suggest.

None of that diminishes the importance of high picks and big dollar international signings. The Dodgers are hitting on those as well as the lower level picks. We get it. A top system requires hitting on all cylinders. Just about every team hits on one or two lower picks every year. We don't tend to get regulars or stars with our hits though. We really need somebody like Rojas or McGarry or Lee to be above average major leaguers. Ideally we need 10 of those top prospects to get maybe 3 above average major leaguers. Right now we don't have that. We all know how to build a top system. We just don't have one yet and have no clue on whether Barber can deliver one though the returns on his number 1s look decent (and that matters).

[andyb]

A Noah Song appearance!!!. Though to be honest I might have him top 10 if he comes back and is the 2019 Noah Song. As usual there is a huge dropoff after number 6.

Curious OF rankings. I get Rincones could be 7th though he really is a complete unknown and is a weak 7th. But Ethan Wilson at 9? Really like him less than Viars and maybe De La Cruz.

[Austinfan]

We know they've missed up to now, but once you get past the 1st couple rounds and the big money LA signings (which they've been miserable at) it takes time to know what you have with the rest of your draft picks and signings.

Right now we're in the third regime change in the last five years, we just don't know yet if it's "same as it ever was" or they're finally got their ■■■■ together. This summer will give us a better read, because if they're drafting better and have a competent development process, players way down on those ranking lists should be making big jumps (and players under the radar should be emerging). The previous iteration had some minor successes, but nothing to show that they've turned the corner. Before that, it was a disaster area.

They are doing a much better job on 1st rd picks, we don't know yet if they've made productive changes in LA, and we don't know if the changes in development philosophy will start to pay dividends. By August we'll have some clues.

[allentown]

Right now we're in the third regime change in the last five years, we just don't know yet if it's "same as it ever was" or they're finally got their ■■■■ together.

A few comments: this churn itself is extreme evidence of a dysfunctional player development/scouting system. It is not the excuse you treat it as, it is strong evidence that the PTB were unable to fix the dysfunction.

Second: we can always hope and pray and be optimistic, but until the organization proves it has fixed player development/scouting, reality says broken until proven otherwise

Third: some players do develop more slowly, but it generally does not take 4 years to know you have an LA player with strong star possibility. Most jump out faster than that. Take the tale of the $4 million boys: Vlad, Jr. in the majors at age 20 putting up a .720 OPS and reaching 1.00 OPS by his age 22 season vs our Ortiz. Look at the young Braves with Acuna putting up a .900+ OPS in Atlanta at age 20 and was plus at every minor league stop beginning at age 17, LA and Houston show the same. It also doesn't take as long as you say for high school draftees to show they are for real. Injuries may derail, but Painter and Hamels showed they were special very quickly. Most future stars/plus major leaguers do.

Fourth: It can take longer for below average major leaguers to develop. Ortiz may become a major league power bat off the bench for years in Philly, but he's not going to be a plus starter. His ceiling is Hall.

Fifth: Our LA program hasn't been fixed, at least as of last year.

[fish]

The development system had it's share of guys take a step up in 2022. If it's a trend, someone from the 2021 bunch of high school picks (Viars, Ottenbrieght, Pena, Tonkel plus college McGowan) and 2022 bunch of college picks (Rincones, McFarlane, Kerkering, Rickets, Rao plus HS Graves/Boyd) who haven't shown much yet will step up in 2023. If they don't, then I'll get worried for the direction they are going .

The international program seems to be operating a little differently - but I'm less patient with that bunch to figure out how to do this. Lee, Caba, Perez, Estanista and Segura are all I guys I look forward to seeing more of. And for pete sakes, common Yemal Flores!

[andyb]

Rickardo Perez does seem a bit underrated for a midlevel signing. He can certainly hit. Hopefully there is more power there and acceptable defense. When you give 2 guys mid-level bonuses (Yemal Flores that year too) getting one of them to look like a prospect is probably good.

[zambonir]

A few comments: this churn itself is extreme evidence of a dysfunctional player development/scouting system. It is not the excuse you treat it as, it is strong evidence that the PTB were unable to fix the dysfunction.

Well, the PTB was the dysfunction. Middleton did not really do anything right from 2015 to 2019, other than writing a few big checks. Gillick and MacPhail were bad at their jobs during that period, and obviously Klentak was mostly bad at his (and I also believe he never really got to do exactly what he wanted, there were still internal forces working against him that I suspect also made him to slow to change certain key people, and left different parts of the org still pulling in multiple directions). They are fortunate they got three good hires (Barber and Fuld and Thomson) out of that period, and that Middleton seems to have learned from his mistakes while also finding a President he can just hand the keys too.

So no, it doesn't excuse anything but it is legitimately the reason/excuse for the state of the system. Whether it has and will improve remains to be seen.

[allentown]

So no, it doesn't excuse anything but it is legitimately the reason/excuse for the state of the system. Whether it has and will improve remains to be seen.

I agree with this take.

[Austinfan]

The elite guys show up early, but that's why they're elite.
Good players can take longer, Utley came out at 21, .746 OPS in A+ at 22, .813 in AAA ball at 23, .907 in AAA at 24.

If a player is being promoted lockstep all the way up the ladder, it's usually a sign of limited upside.
However, it's not unusual for a young (LA, HS) player to struggle for a couple years while he fills out and fixes his mechanics - then take off like a sky rocket. Rojas might be that guy - A+, AA, AFL, improving at each stop last season.

One reason I think De La Cruz has more upside than Ortiz, he had more struggles, but the light seemed to go on last season - I think players often make dramatic jumps b/c they've fixed a major flaw, players who make steady progress are more likely to have learned how to play within their limitations (if you can't hit a breaking ball, stop swinging at them is different from learning how to hit one).

[andyb]

Utley was elite and would have been in the majors a year earlier if they had not moved him to 3B that first AAA year.

Again, we all know that prospects move at different speeds and lower level prospects take more time. That just does not tell us anything though. It is not an excuse you can keep rolling out year after year. We'll see if the new regime is better. We just have not seen it yet.

[Austinfan]

We'll know if the new regime is taking hold by players jumping from Clearwater to Reading by the end of the season, or GCL to Lakewood. That is, the light going on and players jumping a level or two.

Ideally, you start a prospect at a level where they can have initial success, then let their play determine their ascent.