Great reading ! Where does Ross Seaton fit ? Possible 4 or 5 SP, or, too hittable ?

"(H)ealth issues like blood clots in the throwing arm scare people." Man, no shock. What kind of a physical did Ruiz have to pass before they signed him?

Great read, great reports, great info.

I do have to say, I am missing the subjective ratings, or "stars". Even if you wanted to free yourself from Goldstein's rankings, it seems bizarre to look at a list and think "all #1's, #2's, and #3's are respectively created equal."

What was the decision on not using a rating system?

So are we not doing the 5-star/4-star/3-star thing? I know it's very imprecise and subjective but it's been very helpful in comparing players between systems of varying strengths.

I'm so hoping that KG opens a new Baseball Prospectus account under a pseudonym so he can troll Jason in the comments section.

So, what is Cisnero's stuff like? I noticed he had a very strong K rate this year at AA/AAA, but if he can't get a mention here, that must be based on smoke and mirrors.

love the new top 10 write-ups!

are there any key differences in the methodology you use to rank your prospects than how KG did?

I really like the new format. I don't need the "stars" as much as I need the quality and depth of the write-ups. I like the OFP too. One thing I would like to see next year is adding the "last year's OFP" to it, so we can perform an improvement or regression analysis (tracking players) without having to pull up the archives. Very well done JP and Crew.

Nice work on this guys. I'm solidly anti-Villar, but other than that I agree with the rankings (not that my opinion matters).

For what it's worth, what's your take on Preston Tucker? Was projected to go in rounds 2-4, fell to 7. Raked in college, raked in pro ball so far, but scouts don't seem to like him because of his body. Any thoughts?

Nicholas Tropeano couldn't even get a mention? Even in the guys on the rise? Boy oh boy, if you aren't drafted in the first two rounds, you're chopped liver until you start throwing no-hitters in AA I guess.

Really like the format and explanations... a little sad there is no ephemera, but my heart will go on.

wow, not even a mention of telvin nash. some *mild* concerns about the hit tool, mayhap? gotta respect the fact that the guy homered, doubled or struck out in the lions share of his ab's.

Great work, Jason. I definitely prefer it without the stars. It seems to me that "6 potential/high risk" is nearly as concise as "four stars" but contains ten times as much useful information.

Last year there was — at the top of each team's report — a "Previous Ranking" line where you could click on specific years to read those listings. That was pretty useful. Possible to add that back in? Thanks!

Similarly, in each player's writeup, it might provide an interesting perspective if you could add an indicator of where he ranked last year in that team's rankings, if applicable. Helps to show their progress, or lack thereof.

Another thumbs down for removing the stars. They were useful for my purposes since my interest level wanes as quickly as the talent level drops. It was one clear advantage over BA's write-ups, and removed questions of interpretation when it came to identifying Top 50 prospect types in advance of the Top 101 (assuming that will still exist). Perhaps I'm way off, but slapping on stars seems like a small effort compared to the heavy lifting of research. When you pay for convenience, losing it isn't fun.

Are you going to rank all the farm systems? People LOVE farm system rankings...

I very much enjoy the new format. The context and descriptions are excellent. Until someone mentioned it in the comments, I hadn't noticed that the stars were gone.

I don't miss them, but I can appreciate why some people would--perhaps you could add some context/depth to comparisons across systems. I do plan on reading each system review, but it will be tough to keep 300+ write-ups in mind when attempting to compare. Will you be ranking the systems at the end?

It was interesting to note that none of the many prospects sent over by the Blue Jays for J.A. Happ were worthy of a mention other than Asher Woj (and he barely got that).

Are any of those players worth keeping an eye on, or are they damaged goods/lottery tickets with limited chance of success?

Thanks!

Nice work .... I miss the "stars", but appreciate the photos next to the names.

Excellent piece! After reading about Jarred Cosart, it sounds like you're insinuating lacks a closer mentality? Or does fortitude mean something else? Do you believe in the closer mentality? If so, where would that go in the scouting report?

I will withhold judgment on the new format until I see a few more writeups, since several things you've said imply that the Astros have a rather unusual system, at least in terms of depth. It may be clearer how their system compares to others, which I think is one of the things people are clamoring for, once we've seen the writeups for those others. This said, it's good writing technique to make some readily-accessible "summary" available, whether that takes the form of stars or something else. Maybe copy the "Overall Future Potential" lines in the "top ten" list at the top of the article? One way or the other, thanks for keeping the content alive.

Question: Is there such thing as a "low risk" prospect? Any recent examples?

The new format is fantastic and is exactly what I want when I am reading about prospects. I want tools profiles, ceilings, risk explanations etc and you guys have pulled it all together into a thorough, easy to read format. I sound like fanboy but I love the format and look forward to then next 29. I'm also happy that I didn't have to wait for my favorite team's report. Nice job to all involved.

I know Jimmy Paredes was mentioned briefly as a utility guy late in the article, but I was curious as to where you like his glove the best? I saw him play some third and outfield, and was curious as to how good with the glove he can be.

Jason

I have a general question about the extent to which command plays into the tool grade of a specfic pitch. The "easy 7" grade you gave to Cosart's fastball prompts the question. I happened to see him in the AFL game on Sat and he had a lot of trouble commanding the fastball. And, of course, you bring up the command issues in other places of the report.

So, is it really possible for a pitcher with Cosart's command issues to have an "easy 7" fastball?

I noticed in other places you've noted 7 power, but 6 game power. It seems like this is an analogous situation for pitchers. Maybe there's a 7 fastball in there somewhere, but if it's not very game likely, then I'm not sure I can see it as "easy".

The "Future Potential" category is ennumerated based on the 2-8 scouting scale, right? Not the typical 1-10, which for most people is what comes to mind first.

This is a system I where I have seen a lot of these first hand. Not only do I think your observations are pretty accurate and balanced, I really like the format. Really good job.

Put me in the group that misses the stars. Is it somewhat lazy? Maybe, but it allows us to compare the depth of systems without doing an exhaustive reading for each pair.

Two other comments:
In drafted/acquired, for players who have been traded (such as Cosart), it would be cool to see the date and details of the trade, as an indicator of how he was valued at that time.

Why is Springer just listed as an OF? Oversight? If it's a young player with undeveloped defensive skill, I can totally understand it, as his ultimate position is still up in the air. However, you list a strength as "above-average defensive profile at premium position". I'd assume that means he's a centre fielder, but "plus arm" could also indicate he's a right fielder.

I really dig the new format, and I appreciate the inclusion of the player pictures as well! I also like the addition of Prospects on the Rise and Factors on the Farm, and the two different set of players covered this way. I think that section would benefit if player's ages were also included (I understand we won't get the full information as in the Top 10, but there should be enough room for DOB, right?)

Thanks to everybody involved, I am excited about all the remaining lists and write-ups!

I agree with the readers that the star rating system was useful for comparing prospects across organizations. It was giving us something that Baseball America wasn't. I can see that it is hard work, though, and not your thing, Jason. I'm OK with your giving us what you can and not wasting your time on translating all of this information into a single simple star rating.

What might be useful, though, and actually easier for you despite the added output is to give two ratings: 1. floor rating; 2. ceiling rating (which you already do with the "Overall Future Potential").

Jason, I really like the new format - the font changes, spacing, and the pictures combine to make it an enjoyable and easier read - and especially the presentation of information. Every lawyer appreciates a reading a well-thought out risk analysis; when its about prospects, its even better.

One thing I miss that I haven't seen anyone else mention is the "Ephemera" that KG used to include. I know these rankings are not his, and I understand and respect that something like that doesn't quite fit in with the new style - but I really liked them! Maybe I'm just a trivia buff, but I found it enhanced my enjoyment of the rankings. Are you thinking / did you think about doing something similar?

DEATH TO THE STARS!

Seriously, on what planet were the March 2012 versions of Bryce Harper and Brett Jackson and Francisco Lindor remotely of the same value/quality as prospects? The system didn't enable easy comparisons, it enabled lazy, misleading comparisons, and we're all better off with the more granular approach.

Seems to be a lot of comments about star ratings, funny thing is I can remember in the comments of KG articles lots of people wanting gradings of the tools etc which we now have and is great.

This is the thing folks, life changes and the stars were KG's thing. When someone new comes in they will want to do their own thing and have their own opinions. That's one of the things I loved about KG was that he did things the way he wanted to. That's what I love about Jason is that he will do his own thing.

For a fantasy guy who wanted a heads up on the opposition and the top 100 the stars are a loss but as a person who wants to understand more about prospects I think this is far better as it makes you think more about the player, what they can and can't do and the risk.

Big thumbs up from me

Oh, & I too miss the stars ...

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this list, thanks for the hard work. I suspect even the naysayers who want stars and hate the Beatles will stick around for the rest.
Even without KG, the prospect content on this site has continued to be easy 80-grade, and will undoubtedly be the highlight of my offseason baseball reading. Great job, guys.

PS, really digging the player photos. Finally we get to see what these guys actually look like.

I DON'T MISS THE STARS

Replace the stars with bacon strips. Everyone wins.

Like the new stuff JP & Co. are doing.

Of all the Rube moves that have been made I believe Singleton will ultimately prove to be the one who got away. I'm curious to see what Cosart becomes and I'm interested in seeing what Santana looks like when he's not in Lancaster anymore but I've seen enough and read enough of Singleton to really like the kid's potential.

Good luck with this group KG... wherever you are.

This might be a really dumb question, so I apologize if thats the case. But when you say Correa projects to possibly have "7" for power does that mean for Shortstops, or all prospects regardless of position?

Enjoy the new format, and appreciate the well organized information. The best feature of this site didn't skip a beat.

Thanks for the great comments, suggestions, and discussion. Seriously, I really appreciate the effort. If this is the response to every team ranking, I'll be tickled stupid.

At first, I was irked by the lack of stars. Then I realized what JP was doing. I appreciate being given the tools to think for myself, instead of being dictated to. Not that KG was a dictator, but the stars did have a way of dumbing things down. So far, so good, JP.
What is your take on Musgrove, Comer and Carlos Perez?
I understand comer lost some velo this year - how much? Injury-related? What was Musgrove's injury and how reasonable are his chances for recovering his stock from 2011?
Thank you!

Congrats on getting the first one out. Format firestorm or not, it has to feel good! Speaking of, the matter of format is a trivial one. What really matters is how the prospects pan out, particulary the ones you deem high OFP/low risk. Just like a trade involving prospects, it may take a while before we know whose analysis and ranking of prospects was superior. But there's no disputing the effort you've put into this, and I believe that will be appreciated by most of us readers. Thank you!

I also mis the stars, but appreciate you doing something different and I enjoy the new format. Well written and analyzed, best of luck to you going forward. I eagerly await to see how crappy my Brewers farm looks. ;-(

Personally, I enjoy change. For me, this particular combination of wit, dynamic writing and insightful inside information about prospects is absolutely refreshing stuff. That's nothing against KG at all, just a vote in favor of the new way.

You may have been asked about this, but thoughts on Ariel Ovando?

This should be a primer question, but is there a reason you're using 2-8, rather than 20-80? The latter scale would allow some half-grades (i.e. 65s), which I think would provide greater nuance.

Jason, I dig the format and like the depth of the work you put into this. One thought though:

You assign players their OFP based on the 2 to 8 scale, that is clear. However, in many instances a player's true potential is tied to the role that they play. Maybe a two-pitch pitcher with great velocity is currently a SP in the minors but projects as 7 closer candidate but only a 5 starting pitcher. If you were doing a profile for that player, would you assign an OFP of 5 or 7? How would we, the reader, know which you were referring to?

I found the stars to be arbitrary and useless. I vastly prefer the OFP. Thanks for the great work, all of you. I can't wait for the rest of the series.

There goes 50 games for Singleton. And for what? "Littering and... littering and... littering and smokin' the reefer."

Where do you see Stassi and Peacock fitting in? I wouldn't think top ten but would they have been deserving of mention had they been acquired before press time? BTW, great meeting you at the Astros game earlier this year.