MLB.com's MLB Pipeline Top 100 Prospects: Schanuel (#95) is the only Angel

[jsnpritchett]

https://www.mlb.com/news/top-100-prospects-list-mlb-pipeline-preseason-2024

 

[Chuck]

19 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

https://www.mlb.com/news/top-100-prospects-list-mlb-pipeline-preseason-2024

 

Personally I think he's ranked way too low. Some of the prospects ranked higher may not even make it to the big leagues, yet Schanuel reached base safely in 29 straight games to begin his Major League career and posted a .400 OBP in the big leagues. 

Kind of dumb ranking him so low. 

Anyhow, I know the biggest question mark is his power and found this interesting in his writeup:

He tapped into more power as he made his way through college, homering 19 times last spring, and while the pop didn’t show up over his first 51 pro games, he spent the offseason working to add strength and make some tweaks to his setup and swing to tap into his raw pop without sacrificing any approach.

[Stradling]

10 minutes ago, Chuck said:

Personally I think he's ranked way too low. Some of the prospects ranked higher may not even make it to the big leagues, yet Schanuel reached base safely in 29 straight games to being his Major League career and posted a .400 OBP in the big leagues. 

Kind of dumb ranking him so low. 

Anyhow, I know the biggest question mark is his power and found this interesting in his writeup:

He tapped into more power as he made his way through college, homering 19 times last spring, and while the pop didn’t show up over his first 51 pro games, he spent the offseason working to add strength and make some tweaks to his setup and swing to tap into his raw pop without sacrificing any approach.

Look at Doug Mientkiewicz 2001-2003 seasons, solid .380 OBP, .820 OPS (116 OPS+) 10-15 homers, 35 doubles.  Thats what I think we will see for a decade for Schanuel, with the upside of more homers.  

[Inside Pitch]

14 minutes ago, Chuck said:

Personally I think he's ranked way too low. Some of the prospects ranked higher may not even make it to the big leagues, yet Schanuel reached base safely in 29 straight games to being his Major League career and posted a .400 OBP in the big leagues. 

Kind of dumb ranking him so low. 

If MLB.com wants to bet that the 94 prospects ranked ahead of him will put up a better OBP/wRC+ through their first 30 MLB games, I'll take that bet.  

 

[UndertheHalo]

I sincerely believe that the Angels have such a stink on them that any of their players get an angels drag effect on these kinds of rankings.  I think it’s so pervasive that these things are useless for Angels fans. 

Edited January 27 by UndertheHalo

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I sincerely believe that the Angels have such a stink on them that any of their players get an angels drag effect on these kinds of rankings.  I think it’s so pervasive that these things are useless for Angels fans. 

It’s more like there are teams that they favor and always have, Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox.  Next are teams that have had recent success at developing such as the Rays. How many Rays prospects have grown to be impact players?  Keep in mind Price and Longoria were almost 20 years ago. 

[Inside Pitch]

20 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I sincerely believe that the Angels have such a stink on them that any of their players get an angels drag effect on these kinds of rankings.  I think it’s so pervasive that these things are useless for Angels fans. 

Meh...  Some of it is just the reality that they have moved guys up very quickly.  If Neto, O'Hoppe, Joyce, Silseth and Schanuel were all still in AAA you'd likely see them all in the top 100 -- Silseth being the biggest stretch because he's not toolsy but his actual AAA performance would have been hard to ignore.

This has been an issue since about 2017, the lack of MLB depth has created a situation where guys were constantly being called up way too soon.

[UndertheHalo]

39 minutes ago, Stradling said:

It’s more like there are teams that they favor and always have, Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox.  Next are teams that have had recent success at developing such as the Rays. How many Rays prospects have grown to be impact players?  Keep in mind Price and Longoria were almost 20 years ago. 

Yes this is mostly what I mean. 

[UndertheHalo]

21 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Meh...  Some of it is just the reality that they have moved guys up very quickly.  If Neto, O'Hoppe, Joyce, Silseth and Schanuel were all still in AAA you'd likely see them all in the top 100 -- Silseth being the biggest stretch because he's not toolsy but his actual AAA performance would have been hard to ignore.

This has been an issue since about 2017, the lack of MLB depth has created a situation where guys were constantly being called up way too soon.

Sure, but I still think there are favored orgs and then ones that are less favored.  Not that any of this matters at all. 

[Inside Pitch]

4 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Sure, but I still think there are favored orgs and then ones that are less favored.  Not that any of this matters at all. 

Oh -- no, I agree with you.  There are also teams that do a really good job of translating tools into performance, once you get the rep for being able to do that it will have some carryover effect.  But that also works against the Angels because they have consistently brought up unfinished products and in some cases likely hurt them by doing so.

I'm sure there are a large number of scouts that look at the Angels and think -- sure those guys have talent but the Angels won't get it out of them.

[Vlad27Trout27]

I still have my 2014/15 Freeman comp.

Avg: 280-300

OBP: 360 -380

Doubles: 30+

Hr: 15 to 20

[Angel Oracle]

2 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

Oh -- no, I agree with you.  There are also teams that do a really good job of translating tools into performance, once you get the rep for being able to do that it will have some carryover effect.  But that also works against the Angels because they have consistently brought up unfinished products and in some cases likely hurt them by doing so.

I'm sure there are a large number of scouts that look at the Angels and think -- sure those guys have talent but the Angels won't get it out of them.

Exhibit A - Adell

[Vlad27Trout27]

Interesting enough, the Dogs only have 2 in the top 100. Losers! 

[Deek]

Schanuel falls somewhere in the Olerud - Freeman range… Across the board (tools, make-up, personality, etc…)

 

I’ll take it…

 

At times last year he looked like a high school kid… but he played WAY above that… 

 

Schanuel, Neto, O’Hoppe are so fun and exciting to watch… There will be bumps, but we just need to see progression from all of them…

[jsnpritchett]

8 minutes ago, Deek said:

Schanuel falls somewhere in the Olerud - Freeman range… Across the board (tools, make-up, personality, etc…)

 

I’ll take it…

 

At times last year he looked like a high school kid… but he played WAY above that… 

 

Schanuel, Neto, O’Hoppe are so fun and exciting to watch… There will be bumps, but we just need to see progression from all of them…

So he'll be somewhere between one of the best first basemen of the '90s and a future Hall of Famer?  That's up there with Blarg's repeated comparisons between O'Hoppe and Gary Carter. 

[Lazorko Saves]

These independent rankers who also do draft rankings *always* end up slotting the guys in top 100 lists in roughly same order as their draft rankings, at least for the first year after the draft.  BA also does this.  I can't blame them, it's pumping your own book until the players sort themselves out with a full year or two of minor league performance.

Callis had Schanuel 26 overall in his draft rankings.  Angels took him 11 overall.  The next three picks were:

12. ARI Tommy Troy (Callis: 17) (2024 Top 100: 74)

13. CHC Matt Shaw  (Callis: 16) (2024 Top 100: 54)

14. BOS Kyle Teel  (Callis: 7) (2024 Top 100: 40)

All those guys Callis had ahead of Schanuel in his draft rankings.  And guess what?  They're all ahead of Schanuel in the top 100.

Basically, it's Callis sticking with his own draft rankings until it becomes obvious who he was wrong on.

Considering he thought there were 25 players in the draft better than Schanuel, it's at least a *little bit* of an admission of being too low on him on Callis' part by even having him in the top 100.  There are a fair number of guys who Callis had ahead in his draft ranking that aren't in the top 100, so again, that's bit of a tacit admission that Schanuel is already looking better than he thought at draft time.

Edited January 28 by Lazorko Saves

[Angelsfan1984]

$20 says if he’s on the dodgers he’s top 10 in all of baseball 

[Inside Pitch]

11 hours ago, Lazorko Saves said:

Callis had Schanuel 26 overall in his draft rankings.  Angels took him 11 overall.  The next three picks were:

12. ARI Tommy Troy (Callis: 17) (2024 Top 100: 74)

13. CHC Matt Shaw  (Callis: 16) (2024 Top 100: 54)

14. BOS Kyle Teel  (Callis: 7) (2024 Top 100: 40)

 

 Not to take anything away from the point you are making, but if those four guys keep doing what they did last year they may end up being the best number 11-14 picks taken in the same draft.  I think everyone but Troy ended up in at least AA.  Kyle Teel who I wouldn't have minded if the Angels had taken, looks like someone who might make it to MLB by next season and Matt Shaw was showing crazy power for a middle IFer.

That was just a really solid group of college hitters.

[Inside Pitch]

11 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

So he'll be somewhere between one of the best first basemen of the '90s and a future Hall of Famer?  That's up there with Blarg's repeated comparisons between O'Hoppe and Gary Carter. 

 

[tdawg87]

Schanuel will fall somewhere between Jake Bauers and Mickey Mantle IMO

[Docwaukee]

On 1/27/2024 at 11:04 AM, Inside Pitch said:

Meh...  Some of it is just the reality that they have moved guys up very quickly.  If Neto, O'Hoppe, Joyce, Silseth and Schanuel were all still in AAA you'd likely see them all in the top 100 -- Silseth being the biggest stretch because he's not toolsy but his actual AAA performance would have been hard to ignore.

This has been an issue since about 2017, the lack of MLB depth has created a situation where guys were constantly being called up way too soon.

they tried calling on some guys before 2017.  The farm was just so miserable it didn't matter.  

To me, individual player rankings are fun and meaningless.  

If they really wanted these lists to be a more accurate indication of future value, there'd be a bunch of relief guys in there.  But it's just not sexy.  

And that's why Schanuel is barely in there.  He's boring.  He'll probably end up being more valuable to his team than the vast majority of others ahead of him.  No one cares at this point that in 2016, Matt Olson was #100

It's the same algorithm for most.  Someone is drafted high or an intl signs for a lot.  Most major league teams know more than the rest of us so those guys get the benefit of the doubt.  By the time someone else does well enough to deserve a ranking, they're in the majors.  

The system rankings are generally more meaningful to me.  And even still there's a ton of bias because a lot of it is based on 1-2 players in each system.  

 

 

[ScottT]

These rankings and  the collectible hobby are obsessed with upside.

Elly De La Cruz is exciting.  He isn't that good right now.

Adell was similar. Hasn't panned out.

[Dtwncbad]

Exactly how many of the 94 players ranked ahead of Schanuel would you trade him straight up for?

The answer is exactly where he should be correctly ranked.

[Dtwncbad]

On 1/28/2024 at 8:50 AM, tdawg87 said:

Schanuel will fall somewhere between Jake Bauers and Mickey Mantle IMO

As long as he doesn’t fall somewhere between Casey Kotchman and JT Snow.

[Hubs]

4 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Exactly how many of the 94 players ranked ahead of Schanuel would you trade him straight up for?

The answer is exactly where he should be correctly ranked.

Trade him right now or trade him in four years for that player? Prospects are all at different levels, which is why I'd like some organization to rank guys by their "impact date" meaning not when they will make the majors, but rather, when they could or should make an impact on the majors.