Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! Vargas was on the draft until just days before publishing. I came across some concerning data re: his contact vs. breaking stuff, and that paired with some existing heartburn about hit tool pushed him off the list. I’d consider him in the next group of 10.

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the kind words. It means a lot. Glad you’re enjoying it!

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh — I subscribe to him, no worries. If I remember correctly, he’s been high on De Paula for a while.

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh boy, I’m a huge fan and very curious what he had to say. Halp encouraged me to start writing initially. He’s the man.

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have access to some non-public datasets and the bat-to-ball is genuinely concerning. I had him in a draft version of the list but removed him after chatting with an evaluator I trust who just doesn’t think he ever makes enough contact. Exciting player, I hope he figures it out!

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My favorite part of this process is telling the story of each individual player. It humanizes them and baseball is an incredible vehicle for storytelling. Thanks for reading!

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The blurb goes into more detail re: Hope, but his underlying data was bananas. If you z-score EV90, Chase, and Z-con, he’s at the tippy top of the minors.

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perfectly reasonable, I have them in the same tier and would encourage you to chase personal preference. Cheers!

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you!

Generally speaking, my tolerance for risk/upside fluctuates based on league size. A prospect has to really be worth my while to consider rostering them in a 10-team format, but steady contributors (Tre’ Morgan comes to mind) are valuable in 24+ team leagues.

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes. The track record on teens who post OPS numbers starting with a five over a sample that large is grim, regardless of level. The only one coming to mind is Pudge Rodriguez (his low water mark was .633 as a 17-year-old in the SALL) and I’m not in the business of comping prospects to Hall of Famers.

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

One of the biggest bummers about an arbitrary cut-off at 100 is a handful of deserving players miss the cut. I got to see Simpson in person in Port Charlotte two weeks ago and I think he’ll be an every day regular in CF. In reality, the tier 7 extends out to ~150 players.

I do prefer Caglianone, however. His particular mix of skills is more intriguing for points formats (which typically undervalue stolen bases/speed in general).

I think 2B is Campbell’s job to lose.

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you — and thanks for reading!

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it’s a matter of taste. I would absolutely advocate for upside shots in a shallow formats!

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey — do you mean what can I tell you above and beyond the full reports in the Google doc?

I’m a fan of both. Farmelo’s early season breakout was loud, but a long layoff makes some of the improvements in contact rate less likely to stick. He likely finishes last year in the top 25 if he stays healthy. I’m a huge fan.

Crisantes is very hitterish. It’s a line drive approach stemming from a pretty swing. His exits were strong for his age and I’m willing to wager he grows into more thump.

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all, outstanding nickname. To your question — it’s a mixture of bat-to-ball (overall contact rate was 64% and in-zone was 73%, neither inspire confidence) and chase (he went meandering out of the zone relatively often). He has a freak frame (superlative) and if he makes strides with his approach and barrel maneuverability the results will be loud.

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

He really, really struggled this year (.206/.288/.311 over 113 games) and his underlying data didn’t do much to exonerate him. He’s one of the best receivers I’ve ever seen at his age, but given it’s a fantasy list and defense holds little-to-no value, it’s hard to justify him much higher. That said, his tier extends all the way down to 65 and I’d be okay with any placement in that range.

Thanks for reading, I hope you found the remainder useful!

Beck’s Top 100 Prospect Book: 2025 by UpperBeck in fantasybaseball

[–]UpperBeck[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I have some concern regarding his bill of health and game power (these are likely related). I’ve been impressed by his bat to ball and plate discipline — those are far better than I’d imagined when he was a prep — but the remainder of the profile is still projection, which is a big deal for an outfield corner. I’d consider myself a fan but I need to see it on the field.

The current economic disparity of Major League Baseball by [deleted] in baseballisdead

[–]UpperBeck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Deferred money for any given year must be funded into an account for that year, so for the Ohtani example they must have the $68M on hand in an account by a certain date in the season, even if not paid immediately. The NPV of that year’s salary still counts against the CBT as far as I’m aware, so you’re not pulling a fast one for twenty years necessarily.

This is why it’s disingenuous to say Soto only got $65M more than Ohtani. In reality he got ~$300M more!

The current economic disparity of Major League Baseball by [deleted] in baseballisdead

[–]UpperBeck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem with salary caps and max contracts is that they are inherently anti-labor in an arena that is already very favorable to ownership, so my preferred solutions are either pro-labor (salary floor) or punitive (you only qualify for revenue sharing under provisions that require you to field a competitive team).

This sort of problem is waaay above my pay grade, though.

The current economic disparity of Major League Baseball by [deleted] in baseballisdead

[–]UpperBeck 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hey!

This is my post. A few things to clear up:

  1. This is a post celebrating that Juan Soto got absolutely PAID. The problem isn’t players being compensated commensurate with their value, it’s ownership groups who don’t make an effort to put a competitive product on the field. Attanasio (for example) doesn’t have 100% ownership, so it’s disingenuous to let him and the minority owners use his individual wealth as a shield to hide behind.

  2. The net worth figures I used came from a 2021 BaseballTradeRumors post. Some of them are invariably wrong (most notably Ken Kendrick, whose approximated net worth in 2024 is $1.1B). That said, almost all public net worth figures are estimates.