2020 TCN Top 50 Prospect Countdown

Home The Cardinal Nation Forums Open Forum 2020 TCN Top 50 Prospect Countdown

Viewing 25 posts - 76 through 100 (of 153 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #116592
    Paul Ivice
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    I’ll go with the latter option. I have heard plenty of scouts talk in such ways when they know they are talking anonymously.

    #116676
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #116780
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #116819
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #116881
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #116966
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #117082
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #117097
    stlcard25
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    Just like last year was probably an overreaction to Nunez crushing the DSL, this year may be an overreaction on the other side. I don’t get too concerned if a guy doesn’t dominate immediately when hitting the states. This year will show a lot for Malcom. I think he will respond and become a solid top 10 guy.

    #117098
    Paul Ivice
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    I agree with #25 and suggest that the Cardinals pushed an 18-year-old too aggressively to expect him to go from the DSL to Peoria in May.

    #117135
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #117187
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #117241
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #117307
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #117354
    CariocaCardinal
    Participant

    Paid - Monthly

    Where does Kim now fit in the prospect ranking – he is ròokie eligible

    #117356
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    Haven’t considered it. What do readers think?

    #117357
    CariocaCardinal
    Participant

    Paid - Monthly

    I would rank him #8. The ranking tempered by his age and only 2 years of control.

    #117361
    Paul Ivice
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    I think of Kim as more of a free agent signing than a prospect. At first, I did not think the number of years of control should be a factor, but it does limit his potential impact. He is signed on the premise that he is major-league ready, so I would not include him in prospect ranking.

    #117374
    CariocaCardinal
    Participant

    Paid - Monthly

    Well, Ohtani was rookie of the year and we did make rookie status the criteria…..

    #117375
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    I get that Kim is an MLB rookie, but I do not consider him a prospect. I am not planning to add him to the site top 50, but that shouldn’t preclude the discussion.

    P.S. To be clearer, the discussion of where to rank Kim is occurring on the top 50 voting thread pinned to the top of the board. Please share your Kim prospect ranking views there. Thanks.

    #117431
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    #117484
    Cardinals27
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    I see more potential and development from Rondon, Cabrera, and even Oviedo than Woodford. Rates like homers/ 9 innings, and walks per 9 innings went the wrong direction, IMO, unless Woodford picks up more velocity as a reliever I am not a believer, yet.

    #117491
    Paul Ivice
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    Woodford’s walks are a concern, mostly because his BB/9IP rate has been increasing as he climbs the ladder, but everyone in Triple-A threw a lot of gopher balls in 2019, and especially iin the homer-happy PCL.

    #117501
    858booyah
    Participant

    Free

    Kim is a rookie but he’s not and shouldn’t be considered a prospect.

    #117502
    CariocaCardinal
    Participant

    Paid - Monthly

    85, that has long been my point. Rookie status and prospect status are different. That is why I question using rookie status as the eligibility criteria for prospect ranking.

    But if that is what you choose to use you should be consistent

    #117504
    Brian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    Just to be clear, for the site, we do not use rookie status. We use the same at-bats and innings pitched limits for obvious convenience. However, we do not use rookie days on the roster limits because those are not readily available. We have done it this same way for at least 15 years.

    Did the community stray from that this year? I let the group manage the voting and no one asked me about it. But if this the issue, please explain.

    For an obvious exception like a foreign player such as Kim, a simple application of common sense is probably good enough – as opposed to trying to create more rules.

    Or do you have a better idea? If the latter, please share.

Viewing 25 posts - 76 through 100 (of 153 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.