WestEddy Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6078454/2025/01/27/top-100-mlb-prospects-2025-keith-law/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twhq&source=twitterhq 20 schultz 37 teel 38 b. montgomery 49 h. smith 53 quero No Colson Montgomery. I guess he's soured on him, and hasn't seen enough bounce back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirmin' for Yermin Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 4 minutes ago, WestEddy said: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6078454/2025/01/27/top-100-mlb-prospects-2025-keith-law/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twhq&source=twitterhq 20 schultz 37 teel 38 b. montgomery 49 h. smith 53 quero No Colson Montgomery. I guess he's soured on him, and hasn't seen enough bounce back. Great to see Quero high here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) Seems that Mr.Thorpe has fallen off the map as well...eligibility her based on rookie status (50 ip) or service time permutations? Edited January 27 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleAleSox Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 29 minutes ago, WestEddy said: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6078454/2025/01/27/top-100-mlb-prospects-2025-keith-law/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twhq&source=twitterhq 20 schultz 37 teel 38 b. montgomery 49 h. smith 53 quero No Colson Montgomery. I guess he's soured on him, and hasn't seen enough bounce back. Obviously Colson's shine has worn off, but I thought Law's AFL report on him was very weird. He said he couldn't move and looked so slow, but he was stealing bases and everyone else said it's the first time he has looked healthy all year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 31 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: Seems that Mr.Thorpe has fallen off the map as well...eligibility her based on rookie status (50 ip) or service time permutations? So, he spent 45 days on the active roster during the Championship Season (which is the regular season?), meaning he's no longer a rookie, despite only throwing 44 innings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Quin said: So, he spent 45 days on the active roster during the Championship Season (which is the regular season?), meaning he's no longer a rookie, despite only throwing 44 innings. Yes it has him currently listed at 111 service days at thebaseballcube.com for 2024. But BA and Pipeline used opposing criteria (one innings/ABs, the other rostered days)...so just wondering what Law's prospect eligibility was set at or by? That's where it gets confusing, as BA had him among the 200+ players not on the list receiving votes for Top 100. Maybe even the voters were at a loss as well. Edited January 27 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted January 27 Author Share Posted January 27 44 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: Seems that Mr.Thorpe has fallen off the map as well...eligibility her based on rookie status (50 ip) or service time permutations? Right from the article: Quote To be eligible for this list, a player must still retain Rookie of the Year eligibility for 2025, and have no experience in NPB/KBO, as those are major leagues and calling, say, Roki Sasaki a “prospect” is pretty silly (not to mention it takes up the space I’d rather use on an actual prospect). I also don’t include the international free agents who just signed in January, since in nearly all cases those guys haven’t been scouted by other teams in a year or more. I know of one such guy who was under a verbal agreement with the team that signed him before he turned 13. No one has an up-to-date scouting report on him. That’s just not happening. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted January 27 Author Share Posted January 27 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Quin said: So, he spent 45 days on the active roster during the Championship Season (which is the regular season?), meaning he's no longer a rookie, despite only throwing 44 innings. Thorpe had 111 days service time. ROY eligibility cut-off - service time (45 days on the active roster), at-bats (130) or innings pitched (50) Edited January 27 by WestEddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold's Leg Lift Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Law has been doing the backpeddle boogie on Montgomery for a while. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 11 minutes ago, WestEddy said: Thorpe had 111 days service time. ROY eligibility cut-off - service time (45 days on the active roster), at-bats (130) or innings pitched (50) I meant to say at least 45 days, but thank you for the exact number. I forgot that it keeps accruing on the DL (which is why we had the whole Crochet boondoggle). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Harold's Leg Lift said: Law has been doing the backpeddle boogie on Montgomery for a while. deVrieze and K.Campbell are the real high flyers now in the middle infield...helium, whatever Vitale calls it now. Edited January 27 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Baseball America is the only publication who ignores 45 days of service. It makes no sense. They go with 130 at-bats or 50 ip. It's weird. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: Baseball America is the only publication who ignores 45 days of service. It makes no sense. They go with 130 at-bats or 50 ip. It's weird. Probably because it's the traditional way of sorting out rookie status, back to the days of the old Sporting News asterisk resignation. BA has been around since Miles Wolff was publisher in the 1980s...actually 1981. I think the service time parameters were added much later...just feels a lot more "technical." Edited January 27 by caulfield12 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Law never liked Montgomery or Thorpe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 43 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said: Law never liked Montgomery or Thorpe. At one point he had Montgomery in his top 20. A year and a half with a bad back has soured him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 14 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: At one point he had Montgomery in his top 20. A year and a half with a bad back has soured him. I remember him always saying he won't stick at SS and the bat won't play at 3rd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Law on Monty. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac9001 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Colson's value takes a significant hit if he can't stick at short. If Law doesn't see any chance of him sticking there, I'm not surprised to see him fall off a top 100 list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 hour ago, mac9001 said: Colson's value takes a significant hit if he can't stick at short. If Law doesn't see any chance of him sticking there, I'm not surprised to see him fall off a top 100 list. You need to have Mayo power and arm strength...basically. Colson seems like an 18-24 homer guy, but we'll see as he grows into his frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 10 hours ago, mac9001 said: Colson's value takes a significant hit if he can't stick at short. If Law doesn't see any chance of him sticking there, I'm not surprised to see him fall off a top 100 list. I haven't read the update, but Law has always been a little more optimistic about him sticking at SS, at least for a while, than most others, although he has mentioned the back, and seemingly stiff body. I just hope they can get rid of the back issue. If they put him at 3B or 2B, i couldn't care less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: I haven't read the update, but Law has always been a little more optimistic about him sticking at SS, at least for a while, than most others, although he has mentioned the back, and seemingly stiff body. I just hope they can get rid of the back issue. If they put him at 3B or 2B, i couldn't care less. https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/major-league?pos=ss&qual=350 It feels like at the very least, we need a 3+ fWAR SS (Willi Castro), Teel/Quero to add up to 3-4 fWAR at catcher and then a 3-5 fWAR CFer (already had one lol). With that foundation in place, you just might be able to compete IF IF IF the starting pitching comes through and doesn't get hurt but actually most hit their projections. Having watched two #1 loaded classes of prospects mostly crash and burn (1999-2000, 2017-2017), that's the obvious source of so much skepticism with both of those groups being stronger overall but maybe third times's a charm??? Edited January 28 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Rookie status eligibility is 130 at bats, 50 IP or 45 days on active roster. Those are the parameters that we use for prospect eligibility at FutureSox and it's basically what everyone uses other than BA. For example, Drew Thorpe and Brooks Baldwin aren't eligible to win rookie of the year because they aren't rookies. Therefore, they shouldn't be on prospect lists. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighurt574 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 5 in the top 50ish isn't bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeC Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 12 minutes ago, bighurt574 said: 5 in the top 50ish isn't bad. What I would love to see is to get to a point where we can be a top-10 farm system year in and year out. The only time we get to see a top-10 farm system is when we sell off our big league assets. It doesn't have to be that way, and I am hoping Getz's organizational plan has that in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, Y2Jimmy0 said: Rookie status eligibility is 130 at bats, 50 IP or 45 days on active roster. Those are the parameters that we use for prospect eligibility at FutureSox and it's basically what everyone uses other than BA. For example, Drew Thorpe and Brooks Baldwin aren't eligible to win rookie of the year because they aren't rookies. Therefore, they shouldn't be on prospect lists. Q: Why is it that a Japanese player posting from the NPB and following a free agent process is allowed to be listed on a Top 100 prospects list that can directly influence the drafting of whatever team signs them? The obvious example here is the Roki Sasaki posting, signing with the Dodgers who are already a front-runner and making the Top 100 list which then makes the Dodgers eligible for a PPI pick. It just seems like a very "have your cake, eat it, then eat the other guy's cake too" moment. Shouldn't MLB-level talent coming from an established baseball league, that follows a normal free agent process, be ineligible to be on a Top 100 Prospects list or even ineligible to be a rookie? https://www.mlb.com/news/top-100-prospects-list-reddit-ama?t=mlb-pipeline-coverage Edited January 28 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.acbdc1097283affff104fdb503e5766f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.