The time has come! Yes, it is time to vote on the Cardinals\u2019 best prospects. I am forced to start this without a Brendan Donovan trade, without a JoJo Romero trade, and without a Nolan Arenado trade. Okay the latter is not likely to matter, because I doubt he returns a top 20 prospect. And frankly, I doubt Romero matters either. Whatever prospect or prospects Romero can return is probably low enough in the top 20 – if at all – that we will not have reached that part of the top 20 yet. And if we do reach that point and he\u2019s not traded, I don\u2019t think he\u2019s getting traded at all – because now we\u2019re in March. Donovan however, his return will be relevant fairly quickly.<\/p>\n
But I kind of doubt he will be netting either the future first or second best prospect in the system, and there\u2019s a fairly good chance I will immediately interrupt this feature because I am going to be heading to Winter Warmup this weekend and usually the next week\u2019s post are based on whatever I see or learn from that. So I thought now was a good time to start, seeing as I am more or less delaying a potential Donovan trade getting in the way until almost end of January. Honestly, if he\u2019s not traded by then, it\u2019s probably not happening.<\/p>\n
I like to start my voting with just five names. There\u2019s a couple reasons for this. First, there aren\u2019t many prospects who have a realistic shot at being the #1 prospect. So it just makes sense to limit how many are on the initial vote. Secondly, I like gradually including more and more prospects as this feature continues to run. Throwing 10 names at you immediately is a bit overwhelming, but if I start with five, and then add two for the next several posts, you slowly start getting introduced to more players.<\/p>\n
With that said, in the past, I have typically just included anyone who was a top 100 prospect. By any site. I don\u2019t know if you know this but the Cardinals have more than five prospects who are considered a top 100 prospect by at least one site. Fangraphs has eight, I\u2019m fairly certain Baseball America has a ninth player not listed by Fangraphs. Last year, I was able to use Baseball Prospectus as a reference point, but their Cardinals list is one of the last being posted this year. Thankfully, that means later this month and not in August like it would be for Fangraphs.<\/p>\n
I do feel a bit of an obligation to explain my reasoning with the five prospects I picked for this initial vote. With nine potential top 100 guys – in the loosest definition of that term – that means four guys are not going to be in this vote that would probably be in this vote in the past. But those four guys, realistically, do not stand a chance at being the #1 prospect, so this is not a concern for me.<\/p>\n
Really, this vote is most likely a two-man race, if it\u2019s a race at all. And because of that, I have made something of an unconventional choice in my five players. Three of them are catchers. I have a very simple explanation. With three catchers in the top 100 and with all three players arguably being potentially interchangeable – someone\u2019s top catcher might be someone else\u2019s third best – that I had no chance but to include all three. By omitting one of them, I am at least indirectly showing where my personal bias is – and I\u2019m trying to avoid that.<\/p>\n
I am not working with zero references either. Last year\u2019s list is a guide. See how they were ranked last year, mentally put them into either \u201cstock rising,\u201d \u201cstock lowering,\u201d or \u201cstock is the same\u201d and that helps me know when I need to put them on the list. I am really just trying to avoid putting on a player too late. If that means I jump the gun a bit and the player ends up being on the list for a long time, well so be it. That has happened in the past, it\u2019ll happen again.<\/p>\n
I am not including two players who are still prospects who were in last year\u2019s top 5. Two prospects who were on the list are on this first vote and the other player is Thomas Saggese, who graduated from being a prospect, so he\u2019s no longer eligible. So you\u2019ll notice neither #2 player Quinn Mathews or #3 player Tink Hence. Mathews, at the very least, did not see his stock rise, and the guy ahead of him is still a prospect. He should have zero percent chance at being the #1 prospect. So I don\u2019t need to add him yet. Hence\u2019s stock arguably lowered, so the same applies to him.<\/p>\n
The only player who I would ordinarily include on this list is Brandon Clarke, who is a complete unknown. But I don\u2019t feel like he has a realistic shot at being the #1 prospect, so to me it\u2019s no risk at all to not include him in the voting. I\u2019d rather just include all three catchers together, who would all be included by the 2nd vote anyway, just because I don\u2019t want to pick which of the three should be left off.<\/p>\n
So you have my reasoning. On Thursday, I\u2019ll add two more players and honestly, you can probably guess pretty easily which two players that\u2019ll be. This year, I am forced to do the voting via Google Forms, which we have used in the past for Hall of Fame voting. You only have one vote and for just one player, I will delete ballots who vote for multiple players. An interesting new wrinkle is\u2026. you guys don\u2019t get to see who is winning. I\u2019m not sure if that\u2019s a good thing or bad thing, but there\u2019ll be no debate within the comments about the current leader in the vote like they\u2019re usually is. So we\u2019ll lose that part of the discussion, we will gain some more anticipation for finding out the winner though. So that might be fun.<\/p>\n
I am listing the candidates in alphabetical order like always. Their listed age is not necessarily the age they are on January 12th, but their age for the 2026 season, which means they might not turn the age I list until as late as June 30th.<\/p>\n
Stats (AA): 107 G, 455 PAs, .247\/.332\/.394, 10.8 BB%, 16.9 K%, .146 ISO, .274 BABIP, 103 wRC+<\/p>\n
Scouting (FG): 35\/50 Hit, 35\/45 Game Power, 50\/50 Raw Power, 40\/30 Speed, 40\/55 Fielding<\/p>\n
It is worth pointing out that Bernal faded hard down the stretch. From August 1st to the end of the season, he had a 62 wRC+. Technically one could say the same about his 2024 season, although that is misleading. He played his last 14 games at a new level. In his last 34 games at High A (same amount of games after August in 2025), he was fairly close to his season level of performance.<\/p>\n
However, fairly good defensive marks, an aversion to striking out, a very good eye, and his only real batting flaw was a low BABIP. But he had a .319 BABIP in Low A and a .333 BABIP in High A, so it\u2019s far too early to know if that means anything. A more normal BABIP and his season looks pretty damn good.<\/p>\n
Stats (AAA): 98 G, 430 PAs, .274\/.337\/.441, 8.4 BB%, 26.5 K%, .167 ISO, .352 BABIP, 105 wRC+<\/p>\n
MLB: 15 G, 46 PAs, .133\/.152\/.244, 0 BB%, 37 K%, .111 ISO, .185 BABIP, 5 wRC+<\/p>\n
Scouting: 35\/40 Hit, 40\/45 Game Power, 50\/50 Raw Power, 20\/20 Speed, 60\/70 Fielding<\/p>\n
As someone who felt like he was trying to temper expectations for Crooks\u2019 offense, I feel like there\u2019s been an overcorrection of sorts. Too many people are paying too much attention to his MLB performance, which was admittedly quite awful. But it was 15 games, 15 games of being completely overwhelmed by the experience, of seeing the best pitchers he\u2019s ever seen in his life.<\/p>\n
But at the same time last year was his first year struggling with strikeouts, which was also a problem in AAA. You also have to be kind of disappointed with where the walk rate ended up – he had 11% BB rates at previous stops and now based on his 2025, his projected walk rate is just 6.9%. A large part of his appeal offensively was that his K\/BB numbers were strong, and that\u2019s at least in doubt now. Defensively, Fangraphs is a fan. That scouting report sort of eerily looks like the left-handed version of Pedro Pages actually. I mean that as a compliment. I know some of you are not Pages fans, but bad contact tool, close to average power, slow, really good defense. That\u2019s Pages.<\/p>\n
Stats (Both A and AA): 2 G, 3.2 IP, 40 K%, 13.3 BB%, 57.1 GB%, .333 BABIP, 2.45 ERA\/5.40 FIP\/1.86 xFIP<\/p>\n
Scouting: 70\/70 Fastball, 50\/60 Slider, 45\/55 Change, 30\/45 Command<\/p>\n
Oh man I\u2019ve been doing this for a few years and I am so used to bad fastballs in the scouting that it is a bit jarring to see a 70 fastball. I am not used to it. Granted, while other teams have prospects with good fastballs, being not used to 70 fastballs could apply to most fanbases. It\u2019s exceptional. It\u2019s not merely good. It\u2019s elite. It\u2019s considered one of the best fastballs in the majors right now.<\/p>\n
In fact, while those two appearances in the minor leagues tell us next to nothing, one thing this profile certainly shows us is that Liam Doyle could probably be a good, if not elite, reliever on Day One. That fastball alone could probably produce an effective reliever and combining it with the slider certainly plays. But obviously, the Cardinals are in it for the long haul. They want his command to improve and they want his change to improve.<\/p>\n
Stats (CPX): 20 G, 80 PAs, .373\/.513\/.831, 20 BB%, 18.8 K%, .458 ISO, .385 BABIP, 238 wRC+<\/p>\n
Low A: 60 G, 271 PAs, .249\/.373\/.498, 14 BB%, 17.7 K%, .249 ISO, .261 BABIP, 145 wRC+<\/p>\n
Scouting: 25\/50 Hit, 20\/55 Game Power, 50\/55 Raw Power, 45\/40 Speed, 40\/60 Fielding<\/p>\n
Did anybody else forget how absurd Rodriguez\u2019s stats were in the complex league? Because I did. I knew he destroyed the league. I forgot it was so video game like though. Correction: I would never have that walk rate in a video game. I also did not remember him having a 145 wRC+ with a .261 BABIP. That is not a good BABIP. It is actually really hard to have that low of a BABIP and be a 145 wRC+ hitter.<\/p>\n
Rodriguez also saw 4 games in High A and while he only had an 80 wRC+, he did bat .294 and struck out just 11.8% of the time. So you know, in addition to the fact that it was an incredibly small sample size, it\u2019s hard to be discouraged when the third level he saw – AT 18-YEARS-OLD – showed he wasn\u2019t overmatched in the slightest. If I may pay tribute to the late great Isiah Whitlock Jr: Sheeeeeit.<\/p>\n
Stats (AA): 62 G, 275 PAs, .300\/.425\/.466, 16 BB%, 14.5 K%, .166 ISO, .337 BABIP, 152 wRC+<\/p>\n
AAA: 47 G, 221 PAs, .314\/.416\/.562, 12.7 BB%, 14.9 K%, .249 ISO, .333, 156 wRC+<\/p>\n
Scouting: 40\/60 Hit, 35\/50 Game Power, 45\/50 Raw Power, 50\/50 Speed, 40\/50 Fielding<\/p>\n
Did anybody else do a double take at Wetherholt\u2019s AAA ISO? Because I sure did. He hit 14 doubles, a triple, and 10 homers in 47 games. Granted, he did not have much power at Springfield for whatever reason. Which is at least mildly confusing in light of his performance at Memphis. Nonetheless, a JJ Wetherholt with power would be a pretty easy All-Star I think. Full disclosure: his projection does not foresee a lot of power and at Busch, that\u2019s probably a safe bet.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m fairly certain the scouting numbers are updated since Fangraphs updated its top 100 list at the conclusion of the 2025 season. Nothing has happened in the three months since that should change its numbers. I mention this because why the hell is his current hit tool a 40? I know the important thing is the 60 potential, but you think he has a 40 hit tool right now? And why?<\/p>\n
IMPORTANT INFORMATION: It kind of seems like I can\u2019t get the Google Form voting to work. If it does, ignore this message. But I am not getting any results from people voting. People can vote, I just don\u2019t know where to find the results. So I have a second voting option below, one where I am actually getting results. Please vote in the Jotform as well.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m leaving the Google Form up just in case for whatever reason the results are being taken and I\u2019ll learn how to access it later, but also please vote in the JotForm below. I am getting actual results from this site, so I\u2019m inclined to think this is the better option. I\u2019m taking a kitchen sink approach to this before I have to go to work.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The time has come! Yes, it is time to vote on the Cardinals\u2019 best prospects. I am forced…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":346823,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2403],"tags":[5,160,4,6213,673,67,4311,4310,38503],"class_list":{"0":"post-516799","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-st-louis-cardinals","8":"tag-baseball","9":"tag-cardinals","10":"tag-mlb","11":"tag-st-louis-cardinals-news","12":"tag-st-louis","13":"tag-st-louis-cardinals","14":"tag-stlouis","15":"tag-stlouiscardinals","16":"tag-veb-daily"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/channels.im\/@mlb\/115882847711462051","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/516799","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=516799"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/516799\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/346823"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=516799"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=516799"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=516799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}