A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.

[Carp4Cy]

Just something to keep in mind when risk adjusted for projected future production of "prospects".

"A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star. While the chance of a prospect becoming a regular MLB player is relatively high, the probability of reaching "All-Star" status is much lower and drops significantly outside the top 20.
Breakdown of Success Rates
Becoming an All-Star: Historically, only about 11-13% of all Top 100 prospects become everyday players, and less than 10% become "stars" or perennial All-Stars. For the specific range around rank #50, the odds are likely closer to a 5-10% chance of one or more All-Star seasons in their career.
Becoming a Solid MLB Player: The #50 rank is often associated with a "50 Future Value (FV)" grade, which Baseball America defines as a "solid regular for a competitive team". One study indicated position players with 50 FV grades turned into stars only 9.9% of the time, though they had a good chance of having some form of MLB career.
Overall Top 100 Rates: About 70% of all top 100 prospects ultimately fail to have a sustained, impactful MLB career. The success rate drops off noticeably after the top 20, with prospects ranked 41-100 having fairly similar, lower success rates. "

[mattmitchl44]

That's why you need to have more prospects rather than fewer.

You simply cannot balance the ML payroll budget without having a lot of young, cost controlled talent.

So however many spins of the wheel you need to accumulate enough such talent, because not all of them will succeed, is how many you have to take.

[Carp4Cy]

That's why you need to have more prospects rather than fewer.

You simply cannot balance the ML payroll budget without having a lot of young, cost controlled talent.

So however many spins of the wheel you need to accumulate enough such talent, because not all of them will succeed, is how many you have to take.

not sure you can ever collect enough to come out ahead. Trading 1 all star like Donovan would likely require a return of 10-20 50-100 ranked prospects to result in 1 future all star.

Trading talent for prospects saves money but also reduces risk adjusted expected future annual production. Trading a Donovan for another similar All-star caliber player (maybe adding another prospect to the trade to get someone with more years of control like Pages) has a much higher chance of getting us future All star production.

What we ultimately need is MLB All Star caliber players. They don't have to arrive as prospects. Also the best prospects will still come thru superior drafting and intl signings.

There is a significantly higher chance of high level success in the top 20 vs the 40-100 rankings. But teams rarely trade top 20s before they reach the majors. We have to draft them ourselves or trade for the as existing MLB players.

[mattmitchl44]

That's why you need to have more prospects rather than fewer.

You simply cannot balance the ML payroll budget without having a lot of young, cost controlled talent.

So however many spins of the wheel you need to accumulate enough such talent, because not all of them will succeed, is how many you have to take.

not sure you can ever collect enough to come out ahead. Trading 1 all star like Donovan would likely require a return of 10-20 50-100 ranked prospects to result in 1 future all star.

Trading talent for prospects saves money but also reduces risk adjusted expected future annual production. Trading a Donovan for another similar All-star caliber player (maybe adding another prospect to the trade to get someone with more years of control like Pages) has a much higher chance of getting us future All star production.

What we ultimately need is MLB All Star caliber players. They don't have to arrive as prospects. Also the best prospects will still come thru superior drafting and intl signings.

There is a significantly higher chance of high level success in the top 20 vs the 40-100 rankings. But teams rarely trade top 20s before they reach the majors. We have to draft them ourselves or trade for the as existing MLB players.

Of course you can - Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc. have all done so. That's fundamentally the only way they could be in the Top 10 in regular season wins over the last decade. They also added some talent by trading for pre-ARB/ARB players from other teams, but generally not ones that were recognized as budding "stars" but more ones that had been overlooked by their teams.

Covered here:

viewtopic.php?t=1518055

But you need what they have shown can be done coupled to the Cardinals ability to eventually spend $170, $175, $180 million in payroll in order to build even better rosters to compete with the Dodgers, Phillies, Yankees, etc.

[JaseMan]

I like stars and all, makes baseball fun. But what would the percentage be for a top 50 MLB prospect that is a productive player, and add value to a team.

[Talkin' Baseball]

The other part of the prospect conversation is players exactly like Donovan. What was his path to the majors? A good many players and even some All-Stars were never top 100 prospects.

[NYCardsFan]

There’s a reason early stage VCs don’t run concentrated portfolios.

[Carp4Cy]

That's why you need to have more prospects rather than fewer.

You simply cannot balance the ML payroll budget without having a lot of young, cost controlled talent.

So however many spins of the wheel you need to accumulate enough such talent, because not all of them will succeed, is how many you have to take.

not sure you can ever collect enough to come out ahead. Trading 1 all star like Donovan would likely require a return of 10-20 50-100 ranked prospects to result in 1 future all star.

Trading talent for prospects saves money but also reduces risk adjusted expected future annual production. Trading a Donovan for another similar All-star caliber player (maybe adding another prospect to the trade to get someone with more years of control like Pages) has a much higher chance of getting us future All star production.

What we ultimately need is MLB All Star caliber players. They don't have to arrive as prospects. Also the best prospects will still come thru superior drafting and intl signings.

There is a significantly higher chance of high level success in the top 20 vs the 40-100 rankings. But teams rarely trade top 20s before they reach the majors. We have to draft them ourselves or trade for the as existing MLB players.

Of course you can - Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc. have all done so. That's fundamentally the only way they could be in the Top 10 in regular season wins over the last decade. They also added some talent by trading for pre-ARB/ARB players from other teams, but generally not ones that were recognized as budding "stars" but more ones that had been overlooked by their teams.

Covered here:

viewtopic.php?t=1518055

But you need what they have shown can be done coupled to the Cardinals ability to eventually spend $170, $175, $180 million in payroll in order to build even better rosters to compete with the Dodgers, Phillies, Yankees, etc.

Bingo. Which begs the question of whether Donovan best falls into the trading for low A level prospects with a 5% chance of becoming an All Star or if Donovan falls into the category of paying him part of that $180M payroll? Or if he falls into a 3rd option of swapping for a similar player worth paying part of that $180M payroll?

There are pros and cons of each scenario. And each comes with its own risk profile.

[Carp4Cy]

I like stars and all, makes baseball fun. But what would the percentage be for a top 50 MLB prospect that is a productive player, and add value to a team.

the article said about 30% to become productive. 70% fail to have an impactful career.

[Carp4Cy]

The other part of the prospect conversation is players exactly like Donovan. What was his path to the majors? A good many players and even some All-Stars were never top 100 prospects.

You draft them in the middle rounds - we've done ok with that part during certain years. Then "develop" them but really the good ones like Tommy and Donny are so smart they mostly develop themselves and would succeed in any system. They are the ones you want as value picks in the middle rounds.

But then what do you do with them? Keep them long term and reap the benefits or just keep swapping them out and hope you don't lose too much value due to transaction costs, conversion risks, unknowns etc?

There are costs to keeping vets but also pitfalls to letting them go for an unknown.

[Carp4Cy]

There’s a reason early stage VCs don’t run concentrated portfolios.

Also Buffet uses VC as an asset allocation within his portfolio, not AS his portfolio.

A good franchise wants to be Buffet, not be the VC firm.

[Talkin' Baseball]

The other part of the prospect conversation is players exactly like Donovan. What was his path to the majors? A good many players and even some All-Stars were never top 100 prospects.

You draft them in the middle rounds - we've done ok with that part during certain years. Then "develop" them but really the good ones like Tommy and Donny are so smart they mostly develop themselves and would succeed in any system. They are the ones you want as value picks in the middle rounds.

But then what do you do with them? Keep them long term and reap the benefits or just keep swapping them out and hope you don't lose too much value due to transaction costs, conversion risks, unknowns etc?

There are costs to keeping vets but also pitfalls to letting them go for an unknown.

Risk is the thing, right? If you are right there in contention, you want the sure thing. If you have no faith in your ability to evaluate, or execute trades, you want the sure thing. When you haven't been to the playoffs for a bit and you are on a downward trajectory you might be more open to taking your "sure thing" 3-win player and try to turn him into two 3- win players, or a 5-win player. You are open to accepting more risk. That's where I am. I like some of the players that may be traded, but I am willing to accept the risk of sending them away for the prospect of something better. I trust Bloom to do this. I did not trust Mozeliak to do this.

[mattmitchl44]

That's why you need to have more prospects rather than fewer.

You simply cannot balance the ML payroll budget without having a lot of young, cost controlled talent.

So however many spins of the wheel you need to accumulate enough such talent, because not all of them will succeed, is how many you have to take.

not sure you can ever collect enough to come out ahead. Trading 1 all star like Donovan would likely require a return of 10-20 50-100 ranked prospects to result in 1 future all star.

Trading talent for prospects saves money but also reduces risk adjusted expected future annual production. Trading a Donovan for another similar All-star caliber player (maybe adding another prospect to the trade to get someone with more years of control like Pages) has a much higher chance of getting us future All star production.

What we ultimately need is MLB All Star caliber players. They don't have to arrive as prospects. Also the best prospects will still come thru superior drafting and intl signings.

There is a significantly higher chance of high level success in the top 20 vs the 40-100 rankings. But teams rarely trade top 20s before they reach the majors. We have to draft them ourselves or trade for the as existing MLB players.

Of course you can - Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc. have all done so. That's fundamentally the only way they could be in the Top 10 in regular season wins over the last decade. They also added some talent by trading for pre-ARB/ARB players from other teams, but generally not ones that were recognized as budding "stars" but more ones that had been overlooked by their teams.

Covered here:

viewtopic.php?t=1518055

But you need what they have shown can be done coupled to the Cardinals ability to eventually spend $170, $175, $180 million in payroll in order to build even better rosters to compete with the Dodgers, Phillies, Yankees, etc.

Bingo. Which begs the question of whether Donovan best falls into the trading for low A level prospects with a 5% chance of becoming an All Star or if Donovan falls into the category of paying him part of that $180M payroll? Or if he falls into a 3rd option of swapping for a similar player worth paying part of that $180M payroll?

There are pros and cons of each scenario. And each comes with its own risk profile.

Well, I've said that I would trade him for the highest-ceilinged, ML-ready or near-ML-ready (AA/AAA) prospect I could get, and I consider that to include guys who may have gotten a brief run in MLB in 2025.

[Pura Vida]

Just something to keep in mind when risk adjusted for projected future production of "prospects".

"A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star. While the chance of a prospect becoming a regular MLB player is relatively high, the probability of reaching "All-Star" status is much lower and drops significantly outside the top 20.
Breakdown of Success Rates
Becoming an All-Star: Historically, only about 11-13% of all Top 100 prospects become everyday players, and less than 10% become "stars" or perennial All-Stars. For the specific range around rank #50, the odds are likely closer to a 5-10% chance of one or more All-Star seasons in their career.
Becoming a Solid MLB Player: The #50 rank is often associated with a "50 Future Value (FV)" grade, which Baseball America defines as a "solid regular for a competitive team". One study indicated position players with 50 FV grades turned into stars only 9.9% of the time, though they had a good chance of having some form of MLB career.
Overall Top 100 Rates: About 70% of all top 100 prospects ultimately fail to have a sustained, impactful MLB career. The success rate drops off noticeably after the top 20, with prospects ranked 41-100 having fairly similar, lower success rates. "

GOOD info!

[Strummer Jones]

Just something to keep in mind when risk adjusted for projected future production of "prospects".

"A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star. While the chance of a prospect becoming a regular MLB player is relatively high, the probability of reaching "All-Star" status is much lower and drops significantly outside the top 20.
Breakdown of Success Rates
Becoming an All-Star: Historically, only about 11-13% of all Top 100 prospects become everyday players, and less than 10% become "stars" or perennial All-Stars. For the specific range around rank #50, the odds are likely closer to a 5-10% chance of one or more All-Star seasons in their career.
Becoming a Solid MLB Player: The #50 rank is often associated with a "50 Future Value (FV)" grade, which Baseball America defines as a "solid regular for a competitive team". One study indicated position players with 50 FV grades turned into stars only 9.9% of the time, though they had a good chance of having some form of MLB career.
Overall Top 100 Rates: About 70% of all top 100 prospects ultimately fail to have a sustained, impactful MLB career. The success rate drops off noticeably after the top 20, with prospects ranked 41-100 having fairly similar, lower success rates. "

I've always wondered what a 50 or 45 or 70 FV prospect looked like. I know those numbers mean something, and the higher the better, but where did say...Aaron Judge rate on the FV scale. Or Brendan Donovan.

[rockondlouie]

Very low odds indeed

Just for fun I looked this up:

Baseball America ranked this player at #42 overall in 2001

Hello

Albert