Ranking the MLB Prospects Traded at the 2026 Deadline
Ranked and briefly analyzed below are the prospects who have been traded during the loosely defined “2026 deadline season,” which for simplicity’s sake we consider all of July. Most of the deals these prospects were a part of have been analyzed at length on this site. An index of those pieces can be found here; you can also click the hyperlink in the “Trade” column below, which will take you to the relevant article. We’ve moved all of the 35+ FV and above players listed here to their new orgs over on The Board, so you can click through to see where they rank among their new teammates and read their full scouting reports. You can also view all of the traded prospects on the 2026 Trade Deadline tab. The Farm System Rankings, which update live, also reflect these changes, so you can see where teams’ systems stack up following the draft and the deadline.
2026 Traded Prospects
| FV | Rank | Name | Position | Age | To | From | For |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 55 | 1 | River Ryan | SP | 28 | DET | LAD | Skubal | Fastball-driven mid-rotation starter with an unconventional (and injury-riddled) career arc. Unique profile. We think he’s a monster the second he’s healthy. |
| 55 | 2 | Anthony Eyanson | SP | 21.8 | BAL | BOS | Rutschman | High-slot mid-rotation arm. Velo has been up and down, more average of late. Elite, Lidge-y slider, developing split. Atypical release. Yesavage sequel? |
| 50 | 3 | Alexander Frias | RF | 18.4 | STL | MIL | May/Romero | Freaky bat speed and rotational athleticism. Huge power, still projectable. Data reads, almost line for line, like 2022 Junior Caminero. Downside looks more like Jesús Sánchez. |
| 50 | 4 | Arjun Nimmala | SS | 20.8 | LAA | TOR | Soriano | Power-hitting shortstop growing into his body, having success at Double-A. Third base risk if he keeps growing. Likely 70% contact rate area, but enough pop that it’s ok. |
| 50 | 5 | Jefferson Rojas | SS | 21.3 | NYM | CHC | Holmes | Capable shortstop, plus at third base. Short-levered, strong hitting hands. Balanced contact/power as college-aged hitter at Double-A. |
| 50 | 6 | Zyhir Hope | RF | 21.5 | DET | LAD | Skubal | Power/speed corner outfielder with below-average defensive feel but a good arm. Terrifying fastball whiffs in 2025, seems to have remedied in this year. Will strike out a bunch, but hit 30 homers. |
| 50 | 7 | Ramon Marquez | SP | 20.9 | SFG | PHI | Arraez | Absurd changeup. Fastball has enjoyed a two-tick velo bump in 2026. Size and strikes are starter-y, violent delivery is not. |
| 50 | 8 | Brayden Taylor | 3B | 24.2 | MIA | TBR | Hicks | Excellent, versatile defender. Selective, playable power. Swing change seems to have unlocked more contact, or is it because he’s repeating Double-A? |
| 50 | 9 | Enddy Azocar | CF | 19.4 | BAL | BOS | Rutschman | Young, athletic outfielder with power and a scary approach. Right-tail ceiling as a 30-homer center fielder. |
| 50 | 10 | Michael Forret | SP | 22.3 | BAL | TBR | T. Wells | Deep, polished repertoire and excellent command. MLB-ready no. 4 type. |
| FV | Rank | Player | Pos | Age | To | From | Trade |
| 45+ | 11 | Henry Lalane | SP | 22.2 | SFG | NYY | Ramos | Back after years of injury and suppressed stuff. Control-over-command, just enough strikes to start. Slider is slower (78 mph) in modern context, but is playing like a 70. |
| 45+ | 12 | Kash Mayfield | SP | 21.5 | DET | SDP | Mize | Lefty starter with a plus change, but an undercooked fastball and slider. Did San Diego leave meat on the bone for Detroit to develop here? |
| 45 | 13 | Jacob Kmatz | SIRP | 23.8 | LAD | TBR | Suwinski | A Rays dev success story whose delivery and repertoire changes have resulted in late-inning relief stuff. Sits 94-98 mph with two premium breakers. |
| 45 | 14 | Gary Gill Hill | SP | 21.9 | NYM | TBR | Peralta | Super efficient strike-thrower whose stuff hasn’t progressed as hoped. Has no. 4/5 starter look, likely to debut in 2027. |
| 45 | 15 | Miguel Mendez | SIRP | 24.1 | SFG | SDP | Ray | Wiry flamethrower with plus slider, shaky feel, and round-down fastball traits. Divisive pitching prospect within the industry despite upper-90s velo. |
| 45 | 16 | Kyson Witherspoon | MIRP | 22 | BAL | BOS | Rutschman | 2025 first-round pick with arm strength and feel to spin it. Another guy whose fastball plays beneath the number. |
| 45 | 17 | Jhomnardo Reyes | RF | 18.8 | BAL | MIN | Kremer | Physical outfield prospect with contact/power blend. Hit his way out of rookie ball prior to trade. Looks like a draft prospect who goes in the pick no. 30-40 range. |
| 45 | 18 | Daniel Eagen | SP | 23.7 | STL | ARI | Nootbaar | Backend starter prospect who needs to find either a little more arm strength or better touch and feel to profile. |
| 45/40+ | 19 | Comp A Pick | — | — | MIN | MLB | Jeffers | This is where we value the pick a revenue sharing team would receive as compensation for losing a Qualifying Offer free agent who they otherwise could have traded. This seems fairly likely for the Twins and Ryan Jeffers. It’s usually a prospect in the 45 or 40+ FV area. |
| 40+ | 20 | Josiah Ragsdale | CF | 22.6 | STL | MIL | May/Romero | Breakout center field prospect. Plus-plus runner with pop. Arrow-up guy despite big swing-and-miss risk. |
| FV | Rank | Player | Pos | Age | To | From | Trade |
| 40+ | 21 | Brady Smith | MIRP | 21.5 | DET | LAD | Skubal | Finally healthy and productive in A-ball after two years of injury and wildness. Potential plus-plus changeup. Velo has been just okay since he’s stretched out. |
| 40+ | 22 | Aidan Smith | CF | 22 | NYM | TBR | Peralta | Power and speed with strikeouts. Had a big 2024 but has not been as good of late, especially this year. Plus power projection and center field fit on defense keeps him in this tier. |
| 40+ | 23 | Joniel Hernandez | SS | 17.4 | SFG | SDP | Ray | DSL stand out at short. Twitchy burner with bat speed. Huge hit tool risk keeps him from a loftier rank. |
| 40+ | 24 | Dasan Hill | SP | 20.6 | TOR | MIN | Hoffman | Projectable lefty with huge arm strength and secondary stuff. Fastball plays way below its velo, struggles with strikes. |
| 40+ | 25 | Jack Cebert | SP | 24.3 | WSN | NYY | L. García | Improved a ton in just a year of pro ball. Starter’s build, delivery, athleticism, and strikes. Breaking ball quality is pretty average, but he has three of them. |
| 40 | 26 | Jacob Kisting | SP | 23.3 | MIA | TBR | Hicks | A nice late-round find for the Twins who has now been traded twice within a year. Plus command, good splitter and changeup, below-average fastball. Backend starter. |
| 40 | 27 | Sammy Stafura | SS | 21.7 | NYM | PIT | Weaver | Plays a nice shortstop. Hard-hit rate has exploded this year, contact rate has tanked. Weird profile. Utility projection. |
| 40 | 28 | Jacob Cozart | C | 23.6 | LAA | CLE | Adell | Plus defender with below-average offensive tools. High-floored backup. |
| 40 | 29 | Kaeden Kent | SS | 22.9 | SFG | NYY | Ramos | Well-rounded, lefty-hitting infielder with above-average contact ability. He’s likely a better long-term fit at 2B/3B. Josh Rojas platoon type. |
| 40 | 30 | Émilien Pitre | 2B | 23.8 | NYM | TBR | Peralta | Patient, contact-oriented second baseman with limited tools and athleticism. |
| FV | Rank | Player | Pos | Age | To | From | Trade |
| 40 | 31 | Zach Franklin | SIRP | 27.8 | NYM | CHW | Brazoban | MLB-ready middle reliever who leans on his slider to throw strikes, and then attacks hitters with late-count splitters and elevated fastballs. |
| 40 | 32 | Adam Macko | MIRP | 25.6 | TEX | TOR | J. Smith | Enigmatic lefty with arm strength and a hammer. At least sometimes. |
| 40 | 33 | Yovanny Cruz | SIRP | 26.9 | WSN | NYY | L. García | A hard-throwing, oft-injured reliever who hopped around before finding traction with the Yankees in 2026. |
| 40 | 34 | Will Dion | MIRP | 25.5 | WSN | CLE | Griffin | Dion has a sneaky fastball, a plus changeup, and the repertoire depth to play a long relief role immediately. |
| 40 | 35 | Mason Adams | SIRP | 26.4 | COL | CHW | Doyle | Delivery is more typical of a reliever, but has had success through Triple-A as a starter because he throws strikes and gets groundballs. |
| 40 | 36 | Tyler Uberstine | MIRP | 27.2 | ATL | BOS | E. White | Fully baked long reliever with an impact fastball enabled by non-velo traits and good command. |
| 40 | 37 | Brandan Bidois | SIRP | 25.1 | MIA | PIT | Bachar | MLB-ready relief prospect with plus breaking stuff and below-average command. |
| 40 | 38 | Ben Grable | SIRP | 24.3 | WSN | NYY | L. García | Yet another Yankees breakout college pitcher who now has a monster fastball. Has reached the doorstep in year one. Can he develop a secondary pitch? |
| 40 | 39 | Sandro Santana | SIRP | 21.4 | STL | ARI | Nootbaar | Lefty reliever with chance for plus FB/SL mix. Breezed through the low minors. |
| 40 | 40 | Kendeglys Virguez | SIRP | 22.2 | WSN | CLE | Griffin | Oft-injured righty reliever with 70 fastball, above-average slider. Healthy now and recently up to Double-A. |
| FV | Rank | Player | Pos | Age | To | From | Trade |
| 40 | 41 | Boston Smith | C | 23.7 | SEA | CHW | L. Castillo | Risk/reward power-hitting catcher with passive approach. Still developing as a defender in every respect. |
| 40 | 42 | Lucas Braun | SP | 24.9 | KCR | ATL | Thomas | Deceptive backend starter prospect with fringy stuff. Good new ballpark for him. |
| 40 | 43 | Duncan Davitt | SP | 26.9 | ATL | CHW | Bart | MLB-ready no. 5 or 6 starter. Lots of strikes, round-up fastball, squeezed out of Rays mix and now ChiSox. |
| 40 | 44 | Josh Hartle | SP | 23.4 | WSN | CLE | Griffin | Durable lefty with plus command of below-average stuff. |
| 40 | 45 | Josh Stephan | SP | 24.8 | TOR | TEX | J. Smith | Pitchability no. 5 starter prospect. Innings-eater with a light fastball. |
| 40 | 46 | Carter Holton | SP | 23.9 | KCR | ATL | Thomas | Southpaw with a slider, just fair performance in Low-A. Relief future. |
| 40 | 47 | Juan Brito | 2B | 24.9 | CIN | CLE | Cash | Balanced switch-hitter with modest power and below-average defensive ability. |
| 40 | 48 | Adrian Santana | SS | 21 | MIA | TBR | Hicks | Supreme little athlete and defender who hasn’t gotten stronger as a pro. Switch-hitting Andrew Velazquez-type role if he stays this small. |
| 40 | 49 | Jonathon Long | 1B | 24.5 | MIA | CHC | Garrett | Data darling corner role player whose swing is often late against fastballs. 1B/LF mix on defense. Viable role player in the lower third of that group. |
| 40 | 50 | Christian Franklin | LF | 26.7 | BAL | WSN | Glassey | Near-ready corner outfield prospect who we think will hit lefties. Could get run soon following Taylor Ward’s departure; was recalled from Norfolk on Tuesday. |
| FV | Rank | Player | Pos | Age | To | From | Trade |
| 40 | 51 | Ryan Sprock | C | 21.9 | TOR | MIN | Nance | Small-school converted third baseman who was making strides on defense and hitting for plus contact in A-ball before the trade. |
| 40 | 52 | Angel Rivero | SP | 19.7 | LAA | TOR | Soriano | Plus athlete with flowing delivery and a beautiful curveball. Fringy arm strength, physically mature for his age. |
| 35+ | 53 | Omar Alfonzo | C | 23 | NYY | PIT | Doval | Powerful catcher with whiff issues and bad defense. He’s now with an org that has been good at improving the latter. |
| 35+ | 54 | Bruin Agbayani | 2B | 19.4 | NYM | MIN | Minter | Benny’s son. Great barrel feel, poor bat speed. Was hitting prior to a shoulder injury in May. |
| 35+ | 55 | Alejandro Rivera | SP | 19.6 | CIN | CLE | Lowe | Super athletic little righty with a great changeup and all kinds of round-up fastball characteristics thanks to his sensational delivery. |
| 35+ | 56 | Mason McGwire | SIRP | 22.6 | LAA | CHC | Zeferjahn | Marks’ son. Up to 99 (but not living there) with inconsistent fastball movement and command. Developmental reliever look despite 2026 strike-throwing improvement. |
| 35+ | 57 | Jace Beck | SIRP | 26.1 | MIA | NYM | Garrett | Very tall righty who could have a big fastball in short stints. |
| 35+ | 58 | Harrison Kreiling | MIRP | 24.4 | BAL | SEA | Ward | Sleeper with average arm strength, intriguing secondaries, very short track record. MIRP type. |
| 35+ | 59 | Zane Barnhart | SIRP | 24.2 | DET | BAL | Rogers | Two-way college player whose command has taken a while to improve. Sits 95, plus sweeper, new cutter. |
| 35+ | 60 | Gabe Davis | SIRP | 22.8 | NYM | CHW | Brazoban | Gigantic righty up to 100, strikes and secondaries still need some love. Changeup looks most promising. |
| FV | Rank | Player | Pos | Age | To | From | Trade |
| 35+ | 61 | Carlos Duran | SIRP | 24.2 | KCR | LAD | Bubic | Hard-throwing, slider-heavy reliever with a lengthy injury history. |
| 35+ | 62 | Mark Manfredi | SIRP | 26.5 | COL | MIL | Senzatela | Hard-throwing lefty who goes right at hitters, mostly with his fastball. Arm slot helps the breaker play okay versus lefties. |
| 35+ | 63 | John Klein | SIRP | 24.3 | TOR | MIN | Hoffman | Developmental success story with path to middle-relief role. |
| 35+ | 64 | Jojo Ingrassia | SIRP | 24 | DET | BOS | J. Jones | Lefty with average stuff and, for the first time in a while, a decent run of health. |
| 35+ | 65 | Max Martin | MIRP | 22.7 | HOU | KCR | Pearson | Low-slot sinker/slider reliever with rare control for a bullpen guy. Shot to upcycle him as a starter. |
| 35+ | 66 | Luke Gabrysh | SIRP | 23.3 | NYM | PHI | Raley | Wild upper-90s reliever in A-ball. |
| 35+ | 67 | Gage Workman | 3B | 26.8 | SDP | DET | Mize | Slick-fielding switch-hitter with a 20 hit tool. |
| 35+ | 68 | Marty Gair | SIRP | 23 | SFG | PHI | Arraez | Up to 102, below-average secondaries and command. |
| 35+ | 69 | Nick Mitchell | CF | 22.9 | WSN | CLE | Griffin | Fourth outfielder with fringy pop, groundball-heavy spray chart. |
| 35+ | 70 | Ty Southisene | 2B | 21.1 | TOR | CHC | Gausman | Small but instinctual player with hit skill. A lot riding on whether he can play short. Very Toronto. |
| FV | Rank | Player | Pos | Age | To | From | Trade |
| 35+ | 71 | Dameury Pena | 2B | 20.9 | TOR | MIN | Hoffman | Small 2B/LF who’s tough to strike out. Very Toronto. |
| 35+ | 72 | Brett Bateman | CF | 24.4 | TOR | CHC | Gausman | Speedy outfielder with hit skill, inside-out swing. Reads off the bat a big question mark. Very Toronto. |
| 35+ | 73 | Carlos Gutierrez | LF | 21.9 | BOS | SFG | Mayer | Undersized lefty tweener with a pretty swing but a hit tool to monitor. |
| 35+ | 74 | John Spikerman | CF | 23.3 | NYM | PHI | Raley | Viable center field defender and switch-hitter with below-average offensive tools. |
| 35+ | 75 | Landyn Vidourek | RF | 22.7 | COL | LAD | Halvorsen | Long-levered outfielder with power, scary swing-and-miss data. |
| 35+ | 76 | Hyun Seung Lee | 3B | 18.5 | MIA | PIT | Bachar | Infielder with speed and projectable power. Uncertain defensive home, platoon candidate. |
| 35+ | 77 | Chayce McDermott | SP | 27.9 | NYM | LAD | Rortvedt | One-time starter prospect who never quite prospered as a strike-thrower. Good stuff in relief, control still lags. |
| 35 | 78 | Aiden May | SP | 23.3 | COL | MIA | Vodnik | Spot starter or length arm with shapely stuff. No clear out pitch. |
| 35 | 79 | Kyle Robinson | SIRP | 23 | LAA | PIT | Yates | Extreme over-the-top relief arm. Velo and control volatility cloud projection. |
| 35 | 80 | Brian Sanchez | RF | 22.1 | MIA | PIT | Bachar | Toolsy outfielder behind the developmental curve as a 22-year-old in High-A. |
| FV | Rank | Player | Pos | Age | To | From | Trade |
| 35 | 81 | Juan Martinez | 2B | 19.3 | COL | MIL | Senzatela | Switch-hitter with a hint of power as a lefty and contact-oriented swing as a righty. Second base-only fit. |
| 35 | 82 | Angel Arredondo | 3B | 19.8 | LAA | TEX | O’Hoppe | Teenager with contact skill and lift-and-pull tendencies; lacks power. |
| 35 | 83 | Brock Moore | SIRP | 26.2 | BAL | SEA | Ward | Hard thrower with a plus slider. Has upside if he can overcome long history of control issues. |
| 35 | 84 | Eddie Micheletti Jr. | OF | 24.6 | LAA | TOR | Soriano | Power-hitting corner outfielder with long swing, not much defensive value. |
| 35 | 85 | Luis Cruz | CF | 18.2 | NYY | PIT | Doval | Contact hitter of slight build, eons away. |
| 35 | 86 | Billy Amick | 3B | 23.7 | NYM | MIN | Minter | Change-of-scenery candidate who struggled defensively and with contact in his first org. |
| 35 | 87 | Nolan Hoffman | SIRP | 29 | KCR | PHI | Colon | Sidearmer who generates Wiffle ball movement, unfortunately with Wiffle ball control. |
| 35 | 88 | Nick Frasso | SP | 27 | COL | LAD | Halvorsen | One-time top prospect who has seen his stuff and control back up following serious injuries. |
| 35 | 89 | Felix Doroteo | SIRP | 21.5 | PIT | CHW | Urquidy | Arm-strength flyer with a middle relief chance if he learns to command his slider. |
| 35 | 90 | Joe Glassey | SIRP | 25 | WSN | BAL | Franklin | Former UDFA has developed an intriguing fastball; his secondaries and delivery give us pause. |
| FV | Rank | Player | Pos | Age | To | From | Trade |
| 35 | 91 | Andrew Moore | SIRP | 27 | PIT | SDP | Stratton | Upper-level hard-throwing lottery ticket. |
| 35 | 92 | Jackson Wolf | MIRP | 27.3 | SDP | DET | Mize | Long-time depth starter prospect who’s changing teams for the third time in four years. |
| 35 | 93 | Carlos Vielma | 3B | 17 | COL | CHW | Doyle | Discerning hitter with a projectable glove who is very far away. |
| 35 | 94 | Manuel Colon | SIRP | 19.6 | PHI | KCR | N. Hoffman | An athletic, undersized righty with an average fastball/changeup combo. |
| 35 | 95 | Jadyn Fielder | OF | 22 | HOU | MIL | McCullers | Prince’s son. Low-A performer without big tools. |
Thanks.
The Nats trading for four (!) pure relief prospects in a single deadline fascinates me. Of course the immediate reaction is “well yeah, that bullpen is putrid,” and that’s true, but teams hardly ever target these kinds of guys in trades and the FV grades reflect that.
This clearly appears to be a model thing and I’m really curious to see how it plays out. I love stuff like this that goes against the conventional grain, trade ‘grades’ be damned.
I don’t mind the “quantity over quality” acquisition approach for them. They desperately need MLB-viable pitchers of all stripes, and they have room to give lots of guys chances in different roles.
Everyone they acquired is in AA ball or higher. There was clearly a plan to stock up on near-ready pitching depth. Combine that with an already good offense and I think it paints a picture of a front office that is going to go out and buy some pitching on the Free Agent market very soon.
Is the offense good now? They need to replace two big bats (at least big this year). While the replacements might work out, we’ll need to wait and see.
If you have to lose guys, lose corner infielders having career years. That’s probably the easiest thing to replace.
But near-ready relief pitching depth?
Conner Early counts, though he’s not on this list since he’s graduated from prospectdom
I am not a huge fan of it, but also, I have seen their bullpen.
Ryan is a classic tease, great stuff and totally unreliable, but will eventually put together one season where he stays healthy enough to make 20+ starts, and it’s going to be a really fun one to watch. After that, I suspect the second act of his career comes when a smart organization realizes asking him to remain healthy as a starter is fighting gravity. He’ll move into a relief/stopper role and give us two or three years of dominance.
Hope ends up closer to Jacque Jones than Matt Kemp, but I can absolutely see a season north of 3.5 WAR with some eye-popping peripherals and a BABIP that seems to have been personally blessed by the baseball gods that will earn him a contract someone feels very good about signing and considerably less good about shortly later.
If he has even one 150 inning season where he pitches at a 55 or 60 grade level I think the Tigers should be thrilled because it doesn’t feel like two is possible.
He can still be valuable if he’s hurt as much as Glasnow, but not if he is injured like Sixto Sanchez.
The Mike Sixel and 12 to 6 usernames put Sixto into my mind, and then I read your comment. Wonder what he’s up to these days.
The Red Sox dealt away a lot of their farm but at least they got back a fun prospect in Carlos Gutierrez. An undersized tweener with a .314/.415/.451 career line? What’s not to like? Come on down, Darren Bragg/Shin-Soo Choo!
I’m not particularly plugged into the prospect discourse, but am I right that these rankings seem higher on a bunch of the Mets’ pickups than other analysts’? I am wondering whether there’s a philosophical split behind it, or what we can put together about the Mets’ current “type.” They seem to have grabbed a number of guys with “weird profiles” or relatively sudden changes in their outlook that maybe don’t have as strong a consensus evaluation.
Thanks for including the comp pick for Jeffers. It will be interesting to see what happens with him in the offseason. I really hope the Twins make the QO, because holding Jeffers down the stretch doesn’t make sense otherwise.
But as a fan, I am fine holding Jeffers and offering the QO. This way you get 2 months of Jeffers down the stretch, and then likely either a comp pick or another year of Jeffers on the QO, with an outside shot to sign him to a long-term deal.
Worst case scenario is you hold Jeffers, miss the playoffs, and then don’t offer the QO… I try not to think about that.
It’s funny that FG is still doing the River Ryan thing even with all the evidence suggesting the ranking is absurd. I generally like eric/brendan but the take is absurd
I don’t think it’s particularly likely given his injury history, but his talent is at the level that he could be an MLB number 3 for a number of his team control years.
If it does I really hope all of the people who pretend him being 28 make him not a real prospect come back and grovel to the people doing analysis more serious than “guy old and injury prone, can’t be a prospect.”
That Kurt Warner guy was just a terrible QB, just like Jacob Degrom was an awful starting pitcher.
It’s not that 28 doesn’t make him a real prospect, it’s that 28 is the start of a pitcher’s decline phase. So while I expect River Ryan to be good when healthy in 2027, however long that may be, the reality is that he’s probably going to get worse from here when you would normally expect a prospect to get better through their years of team control.
I just will not interface with this “28 is the start of a pitcher’s decline phase” idea. Do we have any evidence that’s true for a guy with 300 innings pitched over the last 6 years?
Sure, I can agree that it is a thing for the guy who pitched 9 innings every game in high school and a complete game every week in college but I just do not believe we have any true scientific evidence showing the different aging curves of different players based on historical workload or injury history.
Based on everything we know from other sports regarding workload and decline phases, it is much more likely that injuries sap his effectiveness before any random “decline” does. The other argument against a 55 is that he hasn’t worked an MLB caliber workload yet. But if he hasn’t worked a MLB workload yet, then how can we compare him to MLB decline curves?
Yes, and it’s true for sports in general. Numerous medical studies have shown that physiological changes occur in the late twenties which reduce oxygen uptake, reduce the proportion of fast twitch fibers, and slow tissue regeneration. That’s the reason pitchers start losing fastball velocity at 28. It isn’t the accumulation of innings, it’s the body physically changing. Endurance and raw strength persist into the 30s, but explosive movements start to decline in the late 20s.
Would love to see some of these studies to evaluate the actual, relative vs absolute differences in things like oxygen uptake and fast twitch fiber proportions and tissue regeneration rates.
Because that all sounds pretty bad in one sentence like that, but if we’re talking about 28 being the beginning of such trends, meh. Rather, if 28 is where suddenly you lose 10-15% in all those areas, then yeah I think I’d be concerned. But I have quite an inkling that that is not at all supportable by data.
Look up The Aging Curve: How Age Affects Physical Performance in Elite Football by Luís Branquinho et al. It has a lot of interesting data on this subject.
To be clear, to back up your claims about reduced oxygen uptake, fast twitch muscle fiber proportions, and tissue regeneration rates being the cause of velo decline in pitchers after the age of 28 you want me to read a study which:
– doesn’t measure oxygen uptake
– doesn’t measure fast twitch muscle fiber proportions
– doesn’t assess tissue regeneration rates
– studied soccer players
– explicitly states that while physical peak occurs at ~26, the steepest and largest dropoff in performance occurs post 32 and not in the 28-32 bucket
notable quote: “The results reveal higher performance of the change of direction (COD), acceleration, and deceleration ability at ~26 years old, while a decrease in performance was registered mainly in the >32-year-old group.”
Another fun one: Furthermore, as technical and tactical data were not integrated, we cannot rule out the hypothesis that the decrease in external load in match performance identified in older players may be a more efficient response to resolving the demands of the tasks imposed by the game and the coach, and not a decrease in performance resulting from the loss of abilities associated with age”
Interesting to read? Absolutely. Useful in corroborating most (or any) of what you claimed above? Not quite.
Read Age-related decline in peak oxygen uptake by Jon Magne Letnes et al.
This is what the Branquinho study is measuring. The decrease in fast twitch muscle fibers is what causes the declines in performance for change of direction, jump, acceleration, and deceleration.
Read Cellular survivorship bias as a mechanistic driver of muscle stem cell aging by Jengmin Kang et al.
Yes. Like I said, “it’s true for sports in general.” These age-related physiological changes occur in all athletes. They are not a result of workload.
Correct. This exact same pattern was documented in Jeff Zimmerman’s Aging Curves Revisited article on The Hardball Times. K% remained roughly flat until 28, started to decline until 30, then declined sharply after 30.
Everything I’m saying here is confirmed by decades of medical research, which I’m sure you already noticed if you did any searching at all.
“This is what the Branquinho study is measuring. The decrease in fast twitch muscle fibers is what causes the declines in performance for change of direction, jump, acceleration, and deceleration.”
Ok yeah this is as good a time as any to realize you aren’t reasoning from a solid place and are discussing in bad faith.
You *cannot* say:
-Older players performed fewer explosive actions.
-Fast-twitch fibers contribute to explosive actions.
-Therefore, these players’ performance declined because they had fewer fast-twitch fibers.
-Therefore, the study measured age-related fast-twitch-fiber loss.
That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work in reality.
The person providing multiple sources is discussing in bad faith, not the person who has presented no sources and has an excuse to avoid acknowledging the other person’s sources?
That’s exactly what you can say if you know that Type II (also known as fast twitch) muscle fibers are responsible for the actions measured in that study.
But, fine, here is yet another source. In Aging, muscle fiber type, and contractile function in sprint-trained athletes by Marko T. Korhonen et al. it says: “Furthermore, it is commonly reported that in aging muscles the reduction in individual fiber size is mainly confined to fast type II fibers, leading to a progressive decrease in the type II-to-type I fiber area ratio.“
Correct
Not correct
How? That’s just an assertion
Tbh I’m just not interested in discussing things with somebody like him. He’s overly prescriptive and broad, and seems to have a gap when it comes to actually understanding how to read and interpret research.
Like, here’s an explicit lie: “This is what the Branquinho study is measuring. The decrease in fast twitch muscle fibers is what causes the declines in performance for change of direction, jump, acceleration, and deceleration.” Because the study explicitly never tells you it is studying this. Seriously, go look at the paper, they never discuss fiber types at all. Researchers do not imply or infer meaning from results of a study: if you want to find a specific outcome, you design research to then go and measure that hypothesis.
His initial claim was very direct: pitchers lose velo at age 28 bc of reasons x, y, and z; and x, y, and z are physiological things that happen in your late 20s.
And then the source he points to specifically doesn’t even address x, y, and z (though he thinks you can read between the lines and squint and see it *maybe* actually secretly measures y), and then even further states the biggest decline in performance comes post age 32, not 28, which was the specific claim.
And then if you point all that out, he starts throwing out more papers and creating more work for you to do, even though ostensibly you’ll run into the same problems: they don’t actually discuss what he’s referencing, or if they do, it’s not nearly as prescriptive as he claims.
The way he argues is just riddled with fallacies: appeal to authority and ad hominem (“Everything I’m saying here is confirmed by decades of medical research, which I’m sure you already noticed if you did any searching at all.”), gish gallop, etc.
The Branquinho study measured performance in change of direction, jump, acceleration, and deceleration. Type II muscle fibers are literally what affect your ability to change direction, jump, accelerate, and decelerate.
It’s funny that you accuse me of lying when I didn’t, then you do lie about what I said. I never at any point said that the biggest decline comes at 28. I pointed to Jeff Zimmerman’s aging curve data, which shows the exact same thing that the Branquinho study did, that decline begins in earnest during the late twenties and declines more sharply after 30. I’ve been saying that exact thing all along, you’re just so desperate to pretend that I’m wrong that you’re willing to lie about what I said rather than admit that I was correct the whole time.
You found an excuse to avoid acknowledging the Branquinho study, so I then linked to other studies that addressed each specific element.
The things I am saying are not controversial in the slightest. They are basic knowledge for anyone with even a minimal education in biology. I even encouraged to look up information yourself because the decline in explosive movements during your late twenties is such a well documented phenomenon.
I provided numerous studies. You provided nothing.
“The things I am saying are not controversial in the slightest. They are basic knowledge for anyone with even a minimal education in biology”
Oh look, there it is again. Thanks for proving the point
The point is proven by looking up the wide assortment of publicly available information. Anyone can see that what I’m saying is true. What I don’t understand is why you keep pretending otherwise.
“The way he argues is just riddled with fallacies: appeal to authority and ad hominem (“Everything I’m saying here is confirmed by decades of medical research, which I’m sure you already noticed if you did any searching at all.”)”
Evergreen comment by me, I must admit
You have provided exactly zero sources disputing anything that I have said.
I have provided four different medical studies confirming different parts of my statement.
If you google “Do athletes decline in their late 20s?” then you will see hundreds more confirming the same.
Why would i need to provide a source to dispute what you’re saying when the first source you provided already disputes what you’re saying?
The Braquinho study said:
So it confirmed exactly what I stated from the beginning. You then complained that it didn’t specifically mention muscle fibers, so I mentioned the Korhonen study for that. You then complained about me providing so many studies for you to read, all while ignoring that they proved my statements correct and never providing any studies or evidence of any kind to counter my argument.
Did the Braquinho study reference the Korhonen study? And did it say that pitchers start losing their velocity at 28 because of oxygen uptake reasons or muscle fiber change reasons or tissue regeneration reasons?
Or are you still trying to connect dots that any remotely rigorous researcher would not try to connect?
The Branquinho study said: “players aged 17–26 years demonstrated the highest physical performance, with notable declines observed in older age groups.”
The Letnes study said: “In line with this the expected decline in VO2peak (oxygen uptake) is generally accepted to be linear and about 10% per decade.”
The Kang study said: “Aging is characterized by a decline in the ability of tissue repair and regeneration after injury.”
The Korhonen study said: “The sprint-trained athletes experienced the typical aging-related reduction in the size of fast fibers, a shift toward a slower MHC isoform profile, and a lower V-o of type I MHC fibers, which played a role in the decline in explosive force production.”
The FrodoBeck study says that you can’t admit when you have been proven wrong.
And how many of those, other than the Branquinho study which specifically didn’t measure any of what you’re talking about, specify that at age 28 these declines can explain declined velocity in major league pitchers?
It’s both. See Skenes, Paul — among hundreds of other flamethrowers who started declining in velo from day 1 of their MLB careers.
So you’re saying there isn’t enough data to say that a player’s ability begins declining at 28, and all the declines we’ve seen are just workload dependent?
Or you’re saying this may be true, or not, but there isn’t enough data?
I think it’s more likely age itself is a factor. That’s just common sense, but even if it isn’t, don’t bring up random anecdotes like Kurt Warner and DeGrom. That doesn’t count as data either.
“300 innings pitched over the last 6 years?”
Its actually less than that he’s pitched a little over 230 innings of pro ball.
There is no major sport in which 28 year olds are not, on average, in decline. There are plenty of pitchers who debuted in their late 20s after major injuries. I can’t think of any that went on to have long, successful careers.
Zack Wheeler started to get rolling when he became 28 and got over a bunch of injuries. Max Scherzer was most dominant between 28 and 36. Randy Johnson’s career didn’t take off until he was 29. Yes, these are all outliers and individual stories don’t prove a general rule, but where is the proof that pitchers as a rule start declining when they are 28? Even a generic aging curve is not destiny.
There used to be a truism that pitchers couldn’t be successful until they were 25. It was considered a rule at the time, but we know it’s not true anymore, but it seems as if that truism may have been replaced by a truism that they start declining at 28.
There are quite a few FG articles demonstrating that, assuming injury survival, pitcher aging curves are to the right of hitters. The ‘survival’ part is in my mind the tougher hill for Ryan to climb. If he can handle a starter’s workload though, I think he’ll be average with a chance for more.
As I already pointed out, it is extremely well established in medical studies that there are profound physiological changes that occur in the late twenties which negatively affect explosive athletic movements.
A generic aging curve represents macro trends. Some players experience those physiological changes slightly earlier and some experience them later, but ultimately everyone is subject to that decline. The only time players successfully defied Father Time was the steroid era.
This is a preposterously blatant lie. There have been dominant young pitchers throughout the entire history of Major League Baseball going to back to Walter Johnson throwing 370 innings with a 1.36 ERA as a 22 year old. Christy Mathewson, Bob Feller, Vida Blue, Fernando Valenzuela, Dwight Gooden, and numerous others were all dominant long before 25. Nearly all of the pitchers in the Hall of Fame were successful long before they turned 25.
Look man, people can be wrong (and I’m not even sure that’s the case here) without you having to call them a liar. That’s a pretty serious accusation and it lowers the discourse here.
Saying “there used to be a truism that pitchers couldn’t be successful until they were 25” is a lie. That’s not a mistake or a misunderstanding. That statement has literally never been true at any point in the history of Major League Baseball.
It may not have been true, but that’s not the same thing as a lie. Saying it is a lie implies that the original poster is intentionally claiming something is true when they know it is not the case.
Maybe close the medical journals for a bit and open an epistemology textbook.
Correct. Getting a player’s age or stats wrong is an honest mistake whereas making up a story about something being a truism when it never has been because it is completely contradicted by the entire history of the sport is not an honest mistake.
I try to avoid tone policing, but you have in the last few weeks been super aggressive on here. I appreciate the value of your comments and think they would be better received if they didn’t come across as adversarial.
There was nothing adversarial in my decline phase comment and that got downvoted. People downvote things they don’t want to believe and upvote things they want to believe.
And people also rightly or wrongly downvote for other reasons. It’s not just about downvotes but about getting more respectful engagement from folks who also enjoy discussing and learning about baseball et al.
FanGraphs readers do not want discussion, they want confirmation of what they want to believe. It isn’t just me who gets downvoted for that; it happens to anyone who expresses an unpopular opinion.
That stuff isn’t worth worrying about. Comments that have value are the ones that provide information. How the masses receive that information is irrelevant.
As someone who has colleagues who have to teach unpopular stuff (think evolution in the Bible belt), how information is conveyed matters a lot for whether it is received.
As someone who grew up in the Bible Belt and saw evolution being taught, any criticism of creationism was never well received by the devout regardless of how the information was conveyed.
I personally downvoted your comment because you are being unnecessarily combative, not because I do or do not want to believe what you are saying. I have no opinion about River Ryan, nor have I spent any amount of time researching athletic decline. It does not personally interest me. I chose to downvote because you are actively choosing to be antagonizing in your discussion.
Not everyone is out to get you, people are in the comment sections because they want to engage. Being rude or accusatorial in your replies is off-putting and makes people less interested in engaging with your opinion.
You might not think it’s adversarial or intend it to be, but it comes off that way pretty often.
I’ve noticed the same thing. And it goes back even farther. JD very well could be correct, but it often seems to devolve into an unpleasant conversation when he’s involved.
“it is extremely well established in medical studies that there are profound physiological changes that occur in the late twenties which negatively affect explosive athletic movements”
This seems obvious as a general trend, and can probably be confirmed by most anyone (like myself) over 28.
I don’t, however, know why this has to be so dogmatically to attack Ryan. My thinking is that the age thing probably is already accounted for in his prospect rankings. If he was doing what he is doing now at age 23, he would probably be a much higher ranked prospect.
Nope. Eric stated: “I don’t care all that much that Ryan is 28 when trying to project him out another five or six years and comparing him to other rookies on a prospect list.”
That’s why so many people are pushing back on the idea of him being a 55. That’s what he would be based on his stuff and command if his age and injury history were not considered, but his age and injury history should be considered.
My reading of that is that Eric does care, but only insofar as projecting his age 28-33/34 value vs a younger player for the same duration. Obviously, all else equal, a younger prospect will have the better overall career even were he equal to the older one for the first 5-6 years. It’s fair to disagree with Eric over whether the age-related decline will come sooner than he predicts, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that Eric is not considering it at all.
Eric Longenhagen: “I don’t care all that much that Ryan is 28.”
A Salty Scientist: “My reading of that is that Eric does care.”
Me: -_-
Doesn’t care much != doesn’t care at all.
I gave you a direct quote of what he said and you’re pretending that he didn’t mean exactly what he said for some bizarre reason.
“Trying to project him out another five or six years and comparing him to other rookies on a prospect list” is a description of Future Value. That’s what FV does. It approximates the prospect’s value over their period of team control.
He gave River Ryan a FV 55 due to his talent, but did not let his age or injury history affect that grade. We’re saying that both age and injury history should have affected that grade.
From the midseason prospect update:
“Ryan is about to be 28 and it’s weird to grapple with the likelihood that a player’s decline phase will come during his years of pre-free agency team control.”
Combined with what else he has written, I don’t see that as Eric completely disregarding age and injury history. I think he is grappling with it and placing less weight–probably much less–than many would prefer, but not zero weight.
I provided a direct quote of him saying: “I don’t care all that much that Ryan is 28 when trying to project him out another five or six years and comparing him to other rookies on a prospect list” and you’re pretending on the basis of absolutely nothing at all that he does care even though he said that he doesn’t.
In the Dodgers prospects list posted on March 1st of 2024, Eric gave River Ryan a Future Value of 55. That was before his shoulder and elbow injuries later that season.
He thinks River Ryan is a FV 55 if you completely ignore the age and injury concerns. He did not factor them into his FV grade at all.
I’m not pretending on the basis of nothing–I’m reading “care all that much” as downweighting, not ignoring. I think you’re “at all” is actually ignoring what he has written. However, since this seems to bother you so much, why don’t you ask him during his next chat? If you are correct, feel free to say ‘I told you so.’
Eric said “I don’t care all that much that Ryan is 28,” and he put exactly the same FV 55 on him that he did in March of 2024 before Ryan’s injuries. The evidence that he isn’t factoring age or health into the grade is conclusive whether or not you can ever bring yourself to admit that you were wrong.
You’re wasting your time. This guy is too pedantic.
Going through the comments, you’re over indexing on biological decline which is incredibly gradual in trained athletes and can be countered or even overcome for a time by increase in experience.
Yes, 28 is old for a prospect. And biological age is undoubtedly a factor working against him. But 230 innings of pro ball is incredibly young from an experience perspective. It would be surprising if he didn’t get better just from pitching more and learning what works and does not work for him in pro baseball. Something he hasn’t had a whole lot of time to do.
Cherry picking a bit here, but Zach Wheeler averaged his hardest fastball at age 31 and his velo trended up every year from 27-31, the year in which he had his best statistical season. In fact, every year in his 30s has been better (mostly significantly) on a rate basis than any year in his 20s while playing in a tougher home park.
Is Zach Wheeler’s career arc the rightmost of right tail outcomes? Yeah, pretty much. But I also don’t understand how you can say that he’s “probably going to get worse” when the reality is we hardly even know what he looks like as a Major Leaguer at this point.
According to Jeff Zimmerman’s aging curve data, the decline is gradual from 26 to 30, but then it falls off a cliff after 30. Since FV is an approximation of a prospect’s value over their entire team control, this is relevant to River Ryan (27 years & 11 months old) in a way that it isn’t to Brody Hopkins (24 years & 6 months old).
Because there is a massive amount of data telling us how pitchers are affected by age.
Are we apologizing for every other guy who overachieves expectations? Dillon Dingler was a 40+. Apologize. Cris Sanchez was a “depth starter” APOLOGIZE!
The argument against Ryan is he should not have the same expectation as a normal prospect.
Kurt Warner started 1 season at a perennially successful FCS school and was a good, not outstanding player with no outstanding traits whose team didnt even win as much as they normally did. deGrom wasnt the best prospect who was called up by his team the week he debuted.
That’s sports!
I’m not going to apologize if Cole Payton becomes a Hall of Famer
I appreciate that the writers here have a take and are sticking with it. But, they ARE having a take. This is them betting on Anthony Richardson. Or betting on Markelle Fultz sucking and trading down for Jayson Tatum instead.
The Rams didnt bet on Kurt Warner. Their QB was Trent Green and he got hurt.
To add, sometimes guys perform to their 90th+ percentile outcome and there’s nothing to be learned from it. If you change how you assess similar guys to tip the scales so that instead of a 40 they are a 50 or 55, you will now be wrong a lot more than you are right. The key part of the ‘how’s my driving?’ audits is determining which misses are genuinely actionable.
Almost definitionally, anyone who is an All-Star level performer is hitting a far tail outcome, and while you can derive trends, I think prospect evaluators will always be more wrong than right, because you are trying to pick who will hit on that far end. Hell, for many guys, even making the majors is a pretty far tail outcome.
Tarik Skubal was a 2019 HM under “Relievers”. Cam Schlittler wasn’t even a 2024 HM. So on, and so forth.
I’m not trying to pick on anyone here, just pointing out how freakin’ hard it is. Teams with gobs and gobs of resources still miss wildly.
That doesn’t even get into cases like W. Franco, E. Clase, Jose Fernandez, etc. where life gets in the way.
To add to your point, something that former team scouts (IIRC it may have been Brendan) have said is it’s their job to believe in and make a case for every prospect’s 80th-percentile outcome, even if a vast majority of them never have a single PA/batter faced in the bigs.
Jacob Degrom after he had his first TJ surgery in the minors threw 111 innings and then 147 innings in a season. River Ryan is at 36 after his TJ and his previous high before surgery was 104. He’s got a long way to go to show he has anywhere near the same durability as Degrom.
Meanwhile, I think putting a 55 on Eyanson is crazy. His fastball has a below average whiff rate and he doesn’t command it well from the games that I have watched. I said he was being overrated two months ago when he was in Greenville and I’m not going to change my view now that he’s in Bowie. Honestly, I don’t even see him as a 50. I think he’s a 45+, which is still an improvement on the 40+ Eric gave him when he was drafted a year ago.
The big question for Ryan is health, but when he’s pitching I have more confidence in his stuff and command than Eyanson’s. The guy I like more than either of them is Ramon Marquez. His changeup gives me goosebumps and he’s better at spotting his fastball than Eyanson.
I think it’s clear that Eric and Brendan weight heavily on proximity to the majors for pitching prospects, and I am guessing you do not.
It does seem like Eyanson is a little on the “effectively wild” which is not great but he is definitely getting swinging strikes overall. I guess it’s more from his secondaries? That is also good.
How many 55s and 60s would you have on a list right now? I would guess that Hernandez, Sloan, Anderson, and Gage Wood are uncontroversial, although the specific grade each one would get would likely vary by the analyst.
I would also guess most but not all people would put Thomas White at a 55, although he’s hurt and doesn’t always throw strikes so maybe more than I thought would put him at a 50. I would have thought Eyanson was uncontroversial but apparently not. River Ryan, Liam Doyle, Jarlin Susana, and Kendry Chourio seem like more controversial choices.
I’m not even sure who else I would even consider.
I don’t think Eyanson’s stuff is that impressive either. The thing I keep coming back to is that he was a third round draft pick in July of 2025 and Eric gave him a grade of 40+. Grades change with exposure to professional hitters, as no one would have Witherspoon as high now as he was then, but 40+ to 55 is an absolutely massive leap in one calendar year.
I do get the appeal of his three pitches coming from a similar release point, tunneling well, and ending up in three different places. That will reliably induce strikeouts not just in the minors but eventually the majors as well. My concern is how he will get to two strikes. His fastball doesn’t miss bats and he tends to miss the zone with it as well. His curveball misses bats at a high rate but he usually buries it below the zone, so that depends on hitters to chase, which they often do. While he does throw the slider for strikes, he has a tendency to hang them periodically, which gives up very hard contact when he does. What’s the pitch that is getting him to two strikes when the curve will be his put away for the strikeout? I don’t know.
If your fastball is below average and your command is below average, the odds of you becoming a #3 starter are pretty slim. It’s possible, as both elements could improve with tweaks. I just don’t see it being likely. Keep in mind that I am also much lower than the consensus on Kade Anderson for the same reason, although his fastball shape and command are both better than Eyanson, so he is a solid #3 in my book.
Hernandez is elite. Sloan and Wood both look like they could be elite. White, Doyle, and Susana all have nasty enough stuff to look elite on a good day but are wildly inconsistent. Marquez, Flora, Anderson, and Bremner might not be elite but they have much higher floors than the ones in my previous sentence. I want to put Scarborough in there but we’ll need to see how he looks over a full season.
To me, Eyanson is clearly behind all of those names. I don’t think he has the potential to be elite or the consistency to be a #3. I would love to be proven wrong about that.
There is less disagreement here than I expected. I think I align more with Eric and Brendan on Eyanson. I like Doyle and White more than Ryan and Susana, with the first couple being more like 55s and the latter two being more like 50 for me. Bremner might be a 55 now, I had forgotten about him. Scarborough feels like he is on that track even if he is not there yet.
I need to learn more about Marquez, Zazueta, and Braylon Doughty. Marquez’s delivery is crazy and I kind of love that he can do that even if it scares people, and he also just came on my radar maybe two weeks ago. Zazueta and Doughty I didn’t know about until probably a year ago.
I don’t think the ranking is absurd. But I do think it is wrong. Eric just has this philosophical approach that if they are hurt you stay on them until you see what they look like when they come back.
This works because guys who keep getting hurt eventually are their tools degrade and they don’t make progress on their skills. So being permanently hurt eventually corrects. The problem here is that he keeps coming back and looking the same.
Like many prospect rankings, Ryan’s seems more about how talented is he rather than how much impact is he likely to have in the majors, essentially career WAR or even 7 year WAR.
Like many prospect rankings, Ryan’s seems more about how talented is he rather than how much impact is he likely to have in the majors, essentially career WAR or even 7-year WAR.
Jackson Wolf should be listed as to DET from SPD.
I’m not really understanding how the Dodgers got a 45 FV pitcher thrown into a trade where they were the ones acquiring the major leaguer (Fedducia). Are the combined values of Suwinski and $250k of international bonus pool really equal to that?
I don’t know for sure, but the Occam’s Razor I can think of is 40-man roster pressure that TB is constantly under motivating them to sell an impending 40-man player, and maybe LA had room to take one.
Kmatz isn’t Rule 5 eligible until Dec. 2027, so I don’t think that’s why.
Just a copy edit note – Jackson Wolf is listed as being traded to SD from DET but it’s the other way around.
I don’t even remember hearing about it on the deadline, but the Suwinski trade is especially surprising. Feduccia for Suwinski alone would’ve been pretty lopsided but ultimately inconsequential since Feduccia’s just a decent backup, but throwing in an MLB-ready leverage reliever makes it very difficult to parse. Even if Tampa knows his elbow ligaments are pulled pork, surely he would have more value than an outfielder who hasn’t shown anything resembling major league competence since 2023
Jack Jack has always had the look of a platoon bat who can play multiple positions in the field. That guys is a valuable plan B for a team like the Rays. I don’t think its expected to happen, but if he puts up 15 hrs in a platoon role while having league average offense and viable defense in that role / 4th OF, would that really surprise you?
Suwinski has really cut his strikeouts down at AAA this year, maybe they think he’s figured something out.
The Alex Frias gassing is glorious and I’m here for it.
That Nimmala pickup is going to be a phenomenal one for the Angels provided they don’t, you know, do what the Angels do to prospects. Every so often they get out of their own way and someone blossoms and the kid has the tools, body, and look to do it. I was very impressed with what I’ve seen from him
And with Soriano genuinely becoming a good rotation piece with some upside that looks like the first month of this season, the Jays picked up a good piece for what they gave up
I feel bad for Nimmala because you just know he’s going to end up as a converted reliever who gets into 48 games with the Rays in 2033.
I think Anthony Eyanson has more future value than Ryan. I don’t even think it’s that close yes there is an age gap but the biggest issue with me with Ryan in terms of future production is health. Its an inherent risk with all pitchers but I think at this point Ryan has been so injury plagued to the point where it is one of the overriding considerations of his profile. In the package the Dodgers gave up I like Hope more than Ryan for the same reason. A team is basically betting on the best outcome in terms of availability with Ryan otherwise it doesn’t matter how good a pitcher he might be.
Still no explanation for changing Azocar’s rating after the trade despite his not appearing on any other top 100 list – including Fangraphs’ own list – which was published ten days prior.