Comments on: Should the Pirates Have More Top 50 Prospects? Your best source for news on the Pittsburgh Pirates and their minor league system. Fri, 19 Dec 2014 04:28:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Tim Williams Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:02:00 +0000 A big problem with top 50/100 lists is that people think that if a player isn’t on the list, they’re not a good prospect. Jose Tabata wasn’t on the top 100 lists last year, and he’s not a bad player. Same with Neil Walker.

You can’t make a judgement on a player because he’s not on the list. All that says is that the player isn’t one of the top 50 prospects in the game.

Also, as you point out, a lot of the best players they’ve acquired are in the majors, and no longer prospects. If one of Tabata/Alvarez would have been held back, they’d have two prospects on this list. Does that make them better? Are they worse because they graduated three guys who would have easily been on this list? Is it bad that they have one player in the top 50, but three players who could be in the 51-100 range (Sanchez, Allie, Heredia)?

I just think too much gets made of these lists, and the expectations are unreasonable, considering what it actually takes for a player to make the list. You’re willing to give credit to other teams, then criticizing the Pirates for not being like those teams, without giving them the same time frame that those other teams had to work with.

By: Anonymous Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:52:00 +0000 Not buying it. The FO also traded away a number of players with the stated purpose of building up the farm system. Ohlendorf and Tabata are in the majors, but not one of the other players we got in these trades is on the list either. If you take the full body of work, there certainly should be more than one player on this list. At best, this FO get an “incomplete” grade. To me, it still feels like a C- effort.

By: cocktailsfor2 Thu, 27 Jan 2011 03:28:00 +0000 Tim –

A very well-reasoned, sane article. Of course, that means nobody’ll see it. Why can’t you be more like Passan?