Josh Ludy is a shining example of why college baseball is a smart option for some players. Ignoring the fact that he wasn’t a highly regarded prospect out of high school, signing at that point in his development would have been big trouble for Ludy’s career. It took him two years to get regular at bats for Baylor. When he finally got his big chance his junior year, his offensive output was met with an emphatic “meh.” Bet you didn’t think you could make “meh” emphatically, but you can. If Ludy had done what he had done in college in the pros, then the odds of him getting a pink tag in his locker at some point along the way would have been high. In college, however, you get more rope. Not a ton of rope, mind you, but more than in professional ball. With one more season to prove himself a legitimate professional talent, Ludy stepped up his game in a big way. That’s the good news for Ludy.
The counter-point to that heartwarming tale is the cruel reality that it is smart to beware college seniors who beat up on teenage arms fresh out of high school. When a college senior dominates Rookie ball, it is expected. Nobody raises an eyebrow when a grown man pummels teenage pitching. The competition at most major college conferences is comparable, especially when you look at most schools Friday/Saturday night starting pitchers. Ludy’s story is a good one, but there’s still a long way between the joy of a successful draft day and reaching the big leagues. He did a nice job in low-A Lakewood as a 22-year old, so perhaps the adjustments made over the years at Baylor have more meaning than initially thought. His story of perseverance makes him a fun guy to root for, in any case. I think the gains he has made as a hitter are legit, but it’ll be his glove, which ranges from adequate to unplayable on any given day, that determines his long range professional future. I like fellow college catcher Chad Carman and think he has value as an experienced backstop capable of guiding young pitching through the ups and downs of professional baseball. Whether or not he ever reaches the highest level remains to be seen – like any double-digit round prospect, it’s a long shot – but it seems likely he’ll provide value to whatever team he plays on regardless of what shows up in the box score.
Regular readers of the site know that I’m a big fan of comps. I think comps are a great way of bridging the gap between obsessive minor league and amateur baseball fans (that’s me and likely anybody reading this by choice) and casual big league only fans. A good comp gives a frame of reference – could be about tools, body type, mechanics, potential production, almost anything – that sheds light on prospects that often play in relative darkness. I understand the complaint that comps can create unrealistic expectations for players. I think that expectations on certain guys can get out of hand regardless of what I, or, more likely, anybody with a wider reach than I says about a particular prospect. Blaming the comp itself is an unnecessary copout. Expectations for prospects can be directly tied to what the industry leaders write. Comps or not, players ranked highly and praised publicly are viewed as future superstars who will hit the ground running from day one of their big league careers. If anything, I believe comps, when done responsibly, can actually help create a more realistic set of possible outcomes for any given player. Take the pre-draft note I heard on Chris Serritella. A scout who saw both players said that Serritella reminded him of Paul Goldschmidt at similar points in their respective development. If the reader’s take away from that is Serritella = Goldschmidt, then somewhere along the way the ball has been dropped. That was not the intention of the original note, but I can see why somebody might read Goldschmidt’s name in connection with Serritella and just run with the comp.
This is where it pays to be responsible whenever throwing out comps. I should have been clearer with the original note. There are some vague similarities between Serritella and Goldschmidt, but also some pretty huge differences (e.g. handedness). The comp originated based on what I had hoped was a fairly simple question: of all the college bat-only prospects in this year’s draft, which player could surprise in the same way Paul Goldschmidt once did? Serritella was the answer I received, but that doesn’t mean Serritella will ever necessarily achieve what Goldschmidt has. It is worth noting that Paul Goldschmidt wasn’t the Paul Goldschmidt we now know back when he was a draft prospect. Prospect development is weird and unpredictable, after all.
At the same age as Serritella, Goldschmidt socked 35 dingers in high-A (Cal League, but still), adding up to a total of 53 pro home runs to that point. Serritella has hit six homers in Rookie ball. I like Serritella because I’m a sucker for watching good power hitters hit, but it doesn’t take a genius to see he has a good amount of ground to make up if he ever wants to approach such a lofty comp. Luckily, he won’t have to turn himself into an everyday starter at first base to provide value as a fourth round pick. Serritella can have a long, fruitful career as a bench bat if he keeps up a good to very good yet not great hitting path. Or, more optimistically, Serritella could find himself in a first base timeshare where he can just mash righthanded pitching whenever the opportunity arises. Most teams shy away from platoons these days, especially at glamor hitting spots like first base, but that doesn’t really change how Serritella could potentially be useful. A smart team will find a way to utilize his talents, assuming he hits as expected.
William Carmona has serious power in his bat. Unfortunately, a below-average approach limits the utility of his one plus tool. His defensive shortcomings – bad in an outfield corner, worse at third base – lock him into first base over the long run. As an org guy who can help a minor league lineup win some games with his pop he’s fine, but very few players with his scouting profile ever reach the highest level. Honestly, I can’t think of any.
Cameron Perkins has a realistic floor of four-corners (LF/RF/3B/1B) bench bat, especially with the way he sees lefthanded pitching. The dearth of starting caliber big league third basemen makes him more of a prospect than he might otherwise be. If he gets his act together on defense – I say it like it is really as simple as that – then he has a chance to get regular time at the hot corner. I can see the future in Philadelphia now: a Cody Asche/Cameron Perkins platoon at third base. Third base has been an organizational black hole for almost fifteen years, so forgive me for fantasizing about Cody and Cameron mashing their way to the top together. I will say this: in much the same way Asche seemingly came out of nowhere this season, Perkins could do the same in 2013. I’m not crazy enough to predict that Perkins will go from Rookie ball to tearing up AA next year, but even suggesting the possibility is exciting. Perkins has some big time sleeper upside. For the record, Asche was the 2011 MLB Draft’s 170th best prospect (according to all-knowing me) while Perkins came in at 98th in 2012. That isn’t the best way to compare the two as draft prospects — last year’s draft had a lot more depth across the board – so I’ve included Asche’s brief pre-draft report below:
“Really like his approach, but have been underwhelmed by his overall package thus far” – that’s what I had in my notes re: Asche coming into the year. I’m happy to say that I’m no longer underwhelmed and now considered myself appropriately whelmed by his performance. I wasn’t alone in worrying that he wouldn’t stick at third coming into the year, but am now ready to go out on a limb and say I think his athleticism and instincts make him underrated at the position. Despite his very powerful throwing arm he’ll never be a good defender at third, but if his plus raw power would look really good if he can at least play at or around average defense as a pro.
Interesting to compare that to Perkins’ pre-draft report (found below). Here are their respective junior season park/schedule adjusted numbers for good measure:
Asche: .337/.437/.668 – 36 BB/39 K – 208 AB
Perkins: .406/.448/.613 – 12 BB/16 K – 217 AB
There’s not really a direct comparison to make between the two prospects, just some food for thought. Third base is a strength in the Phillies minor league system, if you can believe it. Keeping that in mind, I think Perkins could start the season in low-A Lakewood. If the Phillies aren’t as committed to keeping Perkins at third as I hope, then he could get challenged with the high-A Clearwater assignment, a la Asche last year. Maikel Franco should be getting the vast majority of time at third base for the Threshers, so Perkins would be best served in Lakewood if having him play third every day is the desired outcome. There will be an opening at AA Reading, but that’s a major stretch for a first full year starting assignment for a position player taken outside of the first round.
Tim Carver is a warm body who can catch the ball consistently at short. He’s not a big leaguer, but he can still give a professional organization some value. It never hurts having a sure-handed shortstop fielding grounders behind young pitching. The selection of Zach Green genuinely caught me by surprise. After getting over the initial shock, I can at least see what the Phillies were thinking: interesting defensive tools that play up due to excellent instincts and an advanced bat for a prep infielder. He played mostly third after signing, but I think he’s best left to fend for himself at short. The potential glut of third basemen in the system – man it feels weird writing that — has a tiny something to do with it, but it has more to do with Green’s good enough range and hands. It’s possible he’ll keep growing and overshoot the position anyway, but leaving him up the middle makes him a really interesting prospect rather than just another lottery ticket.
You can flip a coin between Perkins and Andrew Pullin to decide which position player drafted by the Phillies is the better bet going forward. The two were actually ranked back-to-back on my final big board: 98th for Perkins, 99th for Pullin. Pullin’s professional switch to second base gives him the edge currently as the best 2012 MLB Draft Phillies position player prospect. Sometimes it is harder to write a lot about favorite prospects because the prose can get a little too flowery and optimistic, so I’ll try to keep it brief with Pullin. Simply put, Pullin has star potential at second base. He won’t wow you with his tools, but he’ll still find a way to leave you walking away impressed. He’s extremely well-rounded for a young player, working deep counts yet always coming out on the positive ledger of the patient vs passive approach to hitting. He’s obviously a work in progress in the infield, but there’s little doubt that he has the hands, feet, and arm to make the conversion a success. The thought of him working as a double play combination with Roman Quinn playing to his right at Lakewood (Low-A) at some point next season makes me very happy. Keeping in mind everything I said about comps earlier, the Pullin/Quinn pairing up the middle looks a little bit like the Chase Utley/Jimmy Rollins duo. Utley and Rollins will both finish their careers as rock solid members of the Hall of Very Good, so projecting any prospect to someday play at that level is likely an exercise in futility. But it never hurts to dream, right?
The Dylan Cozens selection was widely panned by the industry leaders in the days that followed the draft. The impressive power, patience, and speed he showed as an 18-year old in the GCL shouldn’t be enough to quiet down those who initially opposed the pick, but I hope it puts to rest the idea that Cozens will never ever make it in pro ball. Cozens was a victim of both limited exposure and easily attainable information this spring. I think he makes for an excellent study in how opinions are formed in the online draft community. There’s such a fine line between trusting the data, empirical or otherwise, attained throughout the draft process and trusting the people within big league scouting staffs who evaluate amateur players for a living.
I don’t think one should like a pick simply because a certain team valued a player highly. It can be part of the conversation, but not the entire basis of liking or disliking a move. This phenomenon seems most common with minor league players, as certain teams (e.g. Tampa over the past few years, Texas currently) have such a strong track record of developing talent that it seems their players get a boost in rankings whether they deserve it or not. It also happens with the draft: see the fawning over any prep arm selected by Logan White and the Dodgers from a few years ago.
While I don’t think one should automatically like a pick because a certain scouting department made it, I do think there is some logic to the idea. It is alright to take a step back and try to consider what the drafting team knows that the general public might not. A few in the business appear to be of the mindset that it is best to form an opinion early and then stick to it no matter what evidence is uncovered along the way. A team drafting a player you ranked 239th (as I ranked Cozens) before the draft with the 77th overall pick doesn’t make anybody right or wrong. It is, however, a data point to be considered when reassessing the player. Ignoring the possibility that you might have misjudged the player initially negates any possibility for growth as an analyst of the sport. What did the Phillies see that I didn’t? What did they know that I didn’t? If after doubling back and re-researching the prospect still leads to the original conclusion on the player, so be it. But to simply dismiss the pick as a massive overdraft is missing an opportunity to do this job better.
I don’t get a chance to see every player in person; even if I did there wouldn’t be a great deal of value to come out of the limited looks from my admittedly amateur eye. Too many prospect writers seem to have made this industry an either or proposition in recent years. Either you go out and see prospects and write “scouting reports,” or you do your best as an aggregator of as many valuable sources as you can. Forgive me if I’m tilting at windmills here, but, really, what’s the harm in doing both? Trust your own opinion, but seek out others to either support or refute what you think you already know. I love going to games and watching video above all else, but I’m not foolhardy enough to think that my own view is the final word. I rely a great deal on my own little web of sources throughout the game. I’d also be lying if I said that I didn’t read and listen to what the industry leaders report on amateur prospects. When Aaron Fitt writes about a college pitcher sitting 88-92 with an above-average slider, that’s information that I can eventually use to help build a fuller picture of a prospect. I literally see no downside to this approach. Alright, I feel better. Let’s move on.
We’ll never know for sure if Cozens was “overdrafted” because we don’t have every team’s big board at our disposal. For all we know, Cozens may have been taken with the very next pick after Philadelphia at 77 if the Phillies decided to pass. All we know for sure is that the Phillies had him down as being worth at least a second round pick, possibly higher. That doesn’t make him good, bad, or anything in between, but, again, it is a viable data point to consider when evaluating him as a prospect. I compared Cozens to Wallace Gonzalez before the draft, but I now think it safe to say that Cozens is a far more athletic prospect who is also more advanced as a hitter. His defense will be something to watch closely, especially if he still has some growing to do in his 6-6, 235 pound frame. I’ve now heard him compared to what Aaron Judge, a potential first round pick from Fresno State, looked like from both an athletic standpoint and as a hitter (opposite handedness) coming out of high school. That would put Cozens’ upside at big league regular or better, depending on your current view of Judge. I’m cautiously optimistic about Cozens’ future.
Steven Golden fits the old Phillies mold of prep outfield prospect. He’s very athletic, a good runner, and an even better defender. The jury is still out on how much power he’ll grow into over the long run. As mentioned in his pre-draft report, I do like his hit tool – he has a far more balanced swing than the typical toolsy high school prospect – more than most I’ve talked to and read. The trouble with projecting high school bats like Golden (i.e. leadoff-type hitters) is that there’s really no telling what kind of plate discipline they’ll show once they get going in pro ball. There are a few indicators to watch out for from a scouting standpoint while they are still playing high school and summer ball, but plate discipline remains the toughest skill to project with any young amateur. There have been three big league players with the surname Golden (Jim, Mike, Roy), so the race to become number four is officially on. Steven will face still competition from last year’s second round pick by the Cubs, Reggie. Both are long shots.
Shane Watson and Mitchell Gueller will forever be linked together in the minds of fans associating the two supplemental first round picks as a package deal. At least that’s how I see it, anyway. Gueller’s fastball is on par with Watson’s, but his breaking ball isn’t as strong at present. A quick categorization of the two puts Watson as more of a polished pitcher (i.e. more pitchability, more refined stuff, better idea of how to put away hitters, etc.) and Gueller as more of an athletic project. That isn’t meant to downplay Watson’s ceiling; the popular Brett Myers comps speak to his mid-rotation or better upside.
One key thing both players share is a late season velocity spike that helped vault their draft stock considerably. Watson went from low-90s peaks to hitting 96. Gueller did the same. One of the interesting subplots to track with Gueller is how his desire to hit will impact his professional future. The Phillies gave him 900,000+ reasons to forget about hitting for the time being, but you have to wonder if his mind will drift back to life in the batter’s box if/when he struggles on the mound. That’s largely baseless conjecture on my end, so feel free to dismiss it if you like. I think there’s a strong argument that Gueller is the superior long-range prospect, especially if you’re all about upside – something about these cold weather pitchers with fewer miles on arm and extremely athletic builds – but the relative safety of Watson gives him the slim advantage. The fact that two really strong young pitching prospects will likely rank closer to 15 than 5 on most offseason organizational prospect rankings is a testament to the quality depth the Phillies have brought in over the past few seasons. I have Watson and Gueller each behind the lefthanded one-two punch of Jesse Biddle and Adam Morgan, likely behind righthanders Ethan Martin, Trevor May, and Jon Pettibone, and ahead of a large group of intriguing future late game relievers like Kenneth Giles, Lisalberto Bonilla, and, unfortunately yet inevitably, Brody Colvin.
Hoby Milner has all of the elements of recent Phillies mid- to late-round lefthanded pitching college steals. That’s what I originally wrote before going back and checking the last decade of Phillies drafts. Turns out they do seem to make a point of targeting a college lefthander or two within the draft’s first few rounds, but the success rate isn’t as high as I had imagined. It’s still very good, sure, but not quite as infallible as my memory wanted me to believe. Names like Justin Blaine (6th round) and Dan Brauer (6th round) are among the swings and misses. Phillies brass has to hope Milner’s more JA Happ and Adam Morgan than Bryan Morgado and Matthew Way, to say nothing of the worthy yet failed gamble on Joe Savery. I liked Milner a lot, ranking him over 100 spots higher on my pre-draft list than where he was actually drafted and noting that I think he’ll be a better pro than collegiate player. His body still has room to either add a few ticks to his peak fastball (from 92-93 peak to 95-96), gain more consistency on his sitting velocity (even if he moves from his current mid- to upper-80s to 88-91 that’s a good thing), or, in a perfect world, both. He has the potential for three above-average pitches (FB/CB/CU) that should help him start for the big club down the line. I don’t think this is necessarily a bold prediction, but all that is keeping him away from truly reaching his pro potential could be a better workout program, good pro coaching, and a more responsibly managed workload. Combine all that with his natural talent and he’ll be the first Phillies draft pick from 2012 to reach the big leagues.
Kevin Brady is another potential pitcher who should be better in pro ball than he showed in college. I’m typically a let the pitcher start until he proves he can’t kind of guy, but I think letting Brady stay in the bullpen and fire away is probably the best course of action. He could be a part of an intriguing High-A bullpen that should also include hard throwers Kenneth Giles and recent position player convert Tim Kennelly. Brady’s upside is likely middle relief; in fact, to use a current Phil as a point of comparison, he reminds me some of a more svelte Josh Lindblom.
The Phillies grabbed two more college arms with some relief upside in Zach Cooper and Jeb Stefan. Cooper lacks the prototypical size teams often search for, but he has plenty of arm strength, a good hard slider, and an average changeup. His ERA was exceptional in 34.2 IP (1.30) between Rookie ball and the Low-A, but his peripherals (6.49 K/9 and 4.56 SIERA) aren’t as exciting. Quick and less than thorough research shows that there has never been a player named Jeb to play big league baseball. Jeb Stefan probably won’t be the first, but he has a nice fastball (94 peak) and good size. Like Cooper, he likely lacks the one knockout pitch to make it as a big league reliever.
I happened to write up the Phillies and Yankees draft reviews back-to-back. That statement alone isn’t particularly interesting, but the timing gave my brain the chance to mash up the two drafts over and over again. The conclusion: these two franchises drafted very, very similarly. I get that you could probably play a similar game with any two random teams – ooh, toolsy outfielders and mature college bats…what are the odds of that in a draft with hundreds of players of each type? – but I happened to notice a connection between Philadelphia and New York, so, darnit, I’m going to run with it. Intriguing outfield to second base project? Big conference college catcher with power? Both teams picked them. High school hitter who has seen time at both first and the outfield? Of course. Hulking lefthanded college slugger? You got it. Freak athlete prep outfielder? Highly regarded high school arms at the top of the draft? Check and check. I favor Pullin’s youth, Peter O’Brien’s pedigree, Nathan Mikolas’ bat, Serritella’s well-roundedness, Austin Aune’s pedigree, and Ty Hensley’s present stuff, so that gives the one-to-one battles to New York. The rest of each team’s draft, however, tells a different story: Perkins and Green are better than any drafted Yankee infielder, and I’d rather have the Phils pitching triumvirate of Gueller/Milner/Brady than New York’s Black/Lail/Goody, though that one is closer than I would have guessed a few months ago. When you step back and look at each team’s respective draft, you see two teams with fairly similar draft day personalities. This entire paragraph is likely full of things that interest only me, but I suppose that’s the beauty of complete editorial control.
Yankees review will be up Monday. Enjoy the weekend, everybody.
8.278 C Josh Ludy (Baylor)
44. Baylor SR C Josh Ludy: above-average present power, strong, compact build; has improved in two major areas this spring – first, his questionable glove now has a chance to be average with continued work, and second, his hit tool, previously below-average, has improved just enough to put his power to use thanks to a cleaned up swing; strong arm; good approach; not sure he has the defensive chops to work as a backup, but power and physical strength are intriguing; 5-10, 210 pounds
24.758 C Chad Carman (Oklahoma City)
61. Oklahoma City rSR C Chad Carman: plus defender who defends well enough to warrant late-round consideration as potential backup catching option; age (23 as of May 9) works against him, but still could be of value to a team in need of a quality, professional presence to work with young pitching in low-minors; 5-10, 185 pounds
4.158 1B Chris Serritella (Southern Illinois)
15. Southern Illinois rJR 1B Chris Serritella: despite longish swing, still shows good bat speed capable of hitting big velocity; when everything is working, his swing is one of the prettiest in amateur ball; plus power potential; above-average defender; strong arm; slow even by first baseman standards; strong hit tool; heard a scout compare him developmentally to current Diamondbacks 1B Paul Goldschmidt during his college days; recovered from broken hamate injury with little to no apparent loss in power; like almost every other player on this list, the road to a starting first base job is paved with obstacles – you never want to rule out players with his kind of raw power, but the most likely positive outcome is a bench bat/platoon player; 6-3, 200 pounds
11.368 1B William Carmona (Stony Brook)
117. Stony Brook JR OF William Carmona: plus raw power; below-average plate discipline; poor defender at present with below-average range, so a move to 3B, where I’m not sure he’d be much better, may be necessary; plus arm strength – has hit 94 off mound; 6-0, 225 pounds
5.188 2B Andrew Pullin (Centralia HS, WA)
16. OF Andrew Pullin (Centralia HS, Washington): above-average arm; above-average speed; big raw power, but inconsistent in swing setup; more solid across the board than a standout in one area; little bit of Utley in swing; 6-0, 185 pounds; L/L
19.608 SS Tim Carver (Arkansas)
76. Arkansas rSR SS Tim Carver: similar to teammate and double-play partner Bo Bigham in that both are solid, high character college guys with little professional upside; gets in trouble trying to do too much at the plate at times; good speed; steady defender; 6-0, 185 pounds
3.125 3B Zach Green (Jesuit HS, CA)
21. SS Zach Green (Jesuit HS, California): good defensive instincts, first step is always right on; strong hit tool; average speed; average at best arm; seen as a future 3B, but not sure he arm for it – think he can stay at SS anyway; 6-3, 205 pounds
6.218 3B Cameron Perkins (Purdue)
15. Purdue JR 3B Cameron Perkins: above-average power upside; interesting profile as a hitter: he’s a well-known hacker, but with low strikeout totals and a well above-average ability to hit for contact; average speed; average defender; could be very good in RF; lets ball get very deep on hands; strong arm; good athlete; 6-5, 200 pounds; bad-ball hitter; hard to strikeout; 6-5, 200 pounds
2.77 OF Dylan Cozens (Chapparal HS, AZ)
13. 1B Dylan Cozens (Chaparral HS, Arizona): raw; big power upside; decent speed and good athleticism for big man; average arm; 6-6, 235 pounds; reminds me of Wallace Gonzalez from last year’s draft
13.428 OF Steven Golden (San Lorenzo HS, CA)
40. OF Steven Golden (St. Francis HS, California): good arm; very good speed; good instincts in OF combined with his speed give him plus range; line drive swing with very few moving parts – I like his hit tool more than most, though power upside is questionable; 6-3, 180 pounds; R/R
1s.40 RHP Shane Watson (Lakewood HS, CA)
35. RHP Shane Watson (Lakewood HS, California): 88-91 FB with sink, 92-93 peak; good 74-78 CB; definitely seen a good 76-80 SL; has shown 95-96 peak in spring 2012, sitting 91-93 FB; plus 78-80 CB; very consistent CB; everything down in zone; no real CU to speak of; 6-4, 200 pounds; spring 2012 UPDATE: 89-92 FB, 94 peak; above-average 75-76 CB; raw 78-81 CU; also rumors of 82 very good CB
1s.54 RHP Mitch Gueller (West HS, WA)
44. RHP Mitchell Gueller (WF West HS, Washington): 91-92 peak, up to 96 by early May; above-average speed; great athlete; CF range; low- to mid-70s CB that could be SL in time, either way has plus upside; low-80s CU; would rather hit, but most clubs prefer him on mound; 6-3, 205 pounds
7.248 LHP Hoby Milner (Texas)
62. Texas JR LHP Hoby Milner: 86-91 FB with great movement, 92-93 peak; used in a variety of ways as amateur: more often 86-89 FB as starter, low-90s as reliever; very good FB command, but not nearly as strong in this area with his offspeed stuff; once showed a potential plus mid-80s SL (freshman year?), but doesn’t use it now; instead relies heavily on mid-70s CB that has gotten a lot better since he first rolled it out as a sophomore; emerging 81-82 CU that is now solid; half-empty view might worry about his college workload/being jerked around between roles, but I think the value of his rubber arm; as thin a college pitcher as I can remember at 6-3, 165 pounds; some players give off the impression that they will be better pros than they showed in college – you watch Milner throw and you want him to be better than he is
10.338 RHP Kevin Brady (Clemson)
142. Clemson JR RHP Kevin Brady: for too long threw a too straight 90-92 FB that touched 94-96, but much improved late life in 2012; good FB command; above-average, but inconsistent 80-83 SL; once flashed plus CB, but ditched pitch for a long stretch before going back to it early in 2012; nondescript CU has gotten better, but is average at best pitch; debate over whether or not he fits best as starter or reliever professionally – health concerns and a lack of a developed third pitch seem to point towards the bullpen, though perhaps the switch comes later rather than sooner; 6-3, 220 pounds
15.488 RHP Zach Cooper (Central Michigan)
236. Central Michigan SR RHP Zach Cooper: 88-92 FB, 93 peak; has hit as high as 94-95 in past; good 82-87 SL; average CU; 5-10, 190 pounds
22.698 RHP Jeb Stefan (Louisiana Tech)
258. Louisiana Tech rJR RHP Jeb Stefan: 90-92 FB, 94 peak; also uses SL and CU, though neither profiles as big league out pitch at this point; iffy control; 6-4, 225 pounds