Aaron Fitt covers both college baseball and prospects for Baseball America. On January 12, Aaron will be releasing his Nationals Top 10 list. This marks the third season that Aaron has reviewed/ranked the Nationals minor league performance as a precursor to Baseball America’s Prospect Handbook where you can find each team’s Top 30 list along with a recap of the 2006 draft for each team. He graciously agreed to answer some questions for me via email.
Nationals Farm Authority (NFA): What impact will the hiring of Mike Rizzo have on the Nationals rebuilding effort? Manny Acta?
Aaron Fitt (AF): When Rizzo was hired, it was unclear exactly how he and scouting director Dana Brown would interact, and who would have what responsibilities. Now it appears clear that Dana will still have plenty of autonomy, but Rizzo was brought in just to get another accomplished baseball mind in the organization. Rizzo has a terrific track record in Arizona, of course, and will have a bigger hand in player procurement and development in 2007, but not at Dana’s expense. Like Rizzo, Acta seems like a nice hire. By all accounts he did a good job handling the various egos on the Dominican team in the World Baseball Classic, and he doesn’t seem like the kind of manager who will bury young players. Definitely much more in line with the kind of long-term, build-from-within approach the Nationals seek than Frank Robinson.
NFA: What is your opinion of the direction taken by the Nationals new ownership (i.e. 2006 draft and in-season trades)?
AF: I’ve been impressed with the foresight shown by Lerner, who is no spring chicken. Too often in sports we see aging owners mortgage the future for a chance to win now, and that approach often leads to bad contracts for established veterans on the downside of their careers. Those types of contracts would be the worst possible thing for Washington to fall into, and you have to give Bowden and his staff plenty of credit for shipping off their older players and stockpiling whatever youth they can. It’s easy to blast him for holding onto Soriano and then losing him to free agency, but he insisted to me that there was not an offer on the table that was better than the pair of first-round picks Soriano will yield in free-agent compensation. So that might end up being the best long-term move for a franchise in long-term rebuilding mode. After all, the two first-rounders the Nats took in 2006 are two of their top three prospects (according to BA’s rankings).
NFA: What is the impact of the Nationals not signing 2006 second round draft pick Sean Black? Were the Nationals correct in apparently holding strong to the slotting bonus?
AF: There is no doubt they wanted to sign Black, but the sides just weren’t very close. Frankly, I was surprised the player stuck to his exorbitant bonus demands, because he was a fringe second-round talent who had just popped up on most draft radars in his senior season. I expected he would realize that his value had peaked and it would be wise to sign, even if he had to take slot money. I don’t blame the Nationals for not meeting his demands — he’s a very nice talent, with a tall, projectable frame and quality stuff, but he’s very raw — hardly a sure bet.
NFA: Should the Nationals continue their focus on high ceiling high school players in the 2007 draft?
AF: Yes, if for no other reason than because the strength of the 2007 draft will be high school players. The college crop is quite weak — once you get past Vandy’s David Price and a group of stellar closers, there’s little to get excited about. On the other hand, there will be some prep players who have a chance to become serious impact prospects. Washington’s in no hurry — they ought to target high-ceiling guys, even if they are far away.
NFA: How would you grade out the Nationals recent drafts?
AF: I really like their 2006 draft, even though Black got away. Marrero, Willems, Englund, King and Gibson are exactly the kind of players they should go after — guys with a chance to make a major impact down the road. Gibson was probably my favorite prospect in the whole draft — wonderful sleeper from Long Island who got overlooked largely because he dominated against inferior high school competition. He has projection, feel for pitching, command and a pair of very good secondary pitches — the whole package, and he’s a lefty. I’m not sold on Van Allen, but his talent is undeniable, so it’s not a bad low-risk, high-reward pick. Zinicola is a fast-track guy, and you saw what he did in his debut. The Nationals love Hassan Pena and Adam Carr, and any time you can get a legit prospect after round 10, you’re doing OK. I give the draft an A-. The 2005 draft is probably a B+ — big points for landing Zimmerman, of course, but Justin Maxwell and Ryan Delaughter had disappointing seasons in 2006, and there aren’t a lot of impact guys past that. Estrada, Stammen and Lannan are all prospects, but none has a ceiling much higher than No. 4 starter. The Nationals love Mike Daniel internally, but I’m skeptical. 2004 is probably a B… Balester in the fourth round carries it, Bray worked out fine, but San Pedro was a bust in the second round. The jury is still out on Ian Desmond — the subject of much debate here in the BA office, with the general consensus that he’s a longshot. Ivany and Peacock are their two best catching prospects, but Marvin Lowrance and Leonard Davis have not lived up to their talent.
NFA: What are some of the Nationals organizational strengths? Weaknesses?
AF: All of a sudden, Washington has pitching depth, thanks largely to the 2006 trades for Mock, Chico, Nunez, Martis, Atilano, etc. The draft also helped, so the regression of Hinckley and Everts is masked. As for position players, the Nationals have concentrated on building depth at shortstop, with the idea that those players will have more value in trade if they can stick at short, or they can be moved to another position where their athleticism will come in handy. That’s not a bad strategy, but as a result the system is weak at the other infield positions. It also could use more power hitters, though Marrero was a good start. The biggest weakness of the system is a lack of impact talent at the upper levels of the minors. Most of the top prospects haven’t even played professionally long enough to know if they’re truly top prospects.
NFA: With the hiring of a new slate of scouts, the Nationals presently have 23 scouts on staff? How do the Nationals stack up against other MLB teams?
AF: The dark days are over for Dana Brown and his staff — the recent hires put the Nationals about on par with the rest of baseball.
NFA: Stan Kasten has said he wants to establish an international presence for the Nationals, how have the first steps progressed (signing of Esmailyn Gonzalez, setting a scout up in Asia)? How long a process is this typically?
AF: The Nationals overpaid for Gonzalez, outbidding everyone by as much as a half-million dollars, but he is a very nice prospect nonetheless. You’re starting to see fruits of Washington’s new Dominican complex and the efforts of Jose Rijo, though it takes some time. Signing Gonzalez was intended largely as a statement to Latin American players and agents that the Nationals are serious players in that market. Now the process of establishing a presence there should accelerate.
NFA: Which Nationals prospect was the biggest surprise in 2006? Biggest disappointment?
AF: Biggest surprise was probably Adam Carr, who had barely pitched in college but showed great stuff while dominating low Class A in his pro debut. I’d also throw Brett Campbell’s name into the mix — his stuff is fringy, but he keeps climbing the ladder. There are far too many candidates for biggest disappointment for Washington’s liking, and you could make a case for Clint Everts, Mike Hinckley, Ian Desmond, Leonard Davis, Francisco Guzman, Tyrell Godwin, Justin Maxwell, or a number of others. I’d probably go with Everts — I really thought he’d bounce back stronger than he did. Next year’s really make or break for him.
NFA: Who is the most over hyped Nationals prospect? Most underrated?
AF: Most over-hyped is probably Desmond, and I probably bear some of the responsibility for that. I ran him up my 2006 top prospects list to No. 4 on the basis of his talent and makeup, but he’s never actually produced results. Time to take a step back on him. For underrated, I might go with Larry Broadway, just because he put up a solid season and has decent power and defensive skills at first base, yet he doesn’t appear to be in Washington’s plans at the big league level. He might get a chance this year if Nick Johnson’s recovery goes slowly, but I’ve also heard Washington’s name mentioned in rumors for veteran first-base free agents. Broadway’s no longer a great prospect, but you could do worse as a short-term solution.
NFA: Who is the one Nationals prospect to watch in 2007?
AF: I’ll stick with my earlier praise for Glenn Gibson and go with him. I’ve got a feeling this guy could end up as a major break-out arm in 2007.