The existential, Faustian dilemma of prospects lists

Over the last few days, a tsunami of prospects lists has washed over baseball like low-cut black dresses at the Golden Globes. There are Top 100 lists, Top 10 By Position lists, Team Top 20 lists, and metadata lists, which listlessly list all listed lists. And they name the same no-name names - former top draft picks, big bonus Latinos, and new no-name names who "broke out" in 2017. 

This year, the Yankees are the Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri of the prospects lists. We placed six on Baseball America's Top 100 - the gold standard - which last year rated Aaron Judge as the 90th - yes, ninetieth - best prospect in the game, while putting Babe Benintendi and Yoan Moncada at the top. (Five years ago, the top three were Jurickson Profar, Dylan Bundy and Oscar Taveras.)

Okay, so let's all agree these lists are a crapola parlor game, something planted in this January Death Month to spike our interest. (But, hey, you want another post ragging about Ellsbury's contract?)

This year's Yankee Big Six are Glyber Torres (6 on Baseball America), Estevan Florial (38), Justus Sheffield (41), Miguel Andujar (59), Albert Abreu (77), and Chance Adams (81). Beyond them are a few familiar names: Jorge Mateo, now of Oakland via Sonny Gray (64), Jorge Guzman, now of Miami via Giancarlo (87) and Dustin Fowler, also of Oakland, via Sonny (88). If you consider that Clint Frazier and Tyler Wade had too many ABs to retain "prospect" status, we could have conceivably placed 11 on this year's list... making us clearly the top farm system in Baseball America Top 100 history. That and a donut would have gotten us a dime.

But since this is a parlor game, let's ask an existential question:

What if the Yanks last July had stood pat - not traded for Sonny or the White Sox package of D-Rob, Kahnle and Toddfather. Would we now be better off?

Let's start with a simple observation: Without the White Sox package, we might not have made it to Game 7 of the ALCS. The Yankees wouldn't be riding on the good will of last year's plucky over-achievers, so the front office would be hungrier and angrier, and fewer fans would have argued against Joe Girardi's firing. 

We'd still have Mateo, Fowler, James Kaprielian, Ian Clarkin, Blake Rutherford, and Tito Polo, legitimate prospects,( though both Kaprielian and Rutherford fell off the BA Top 100 this year.)

If we were trading those prospects now, we probably would have "won" the Geritt Cole Sweepstakes from Pittsburgh. (But no Sonny Gray.) We'd have $13 million more to spend - by eliminating D-Rob's salary - which would put us in the market for Yu Darvish or a top starter. (But no D-Rob.) We would have needed to make these deals before December's Rule 5 draft, where we would surely suffered heavier losses than we did. 

Would we better off? If we had Mateo, he'd be going to spring training as a long shot candidate to play 2B. Clarkin would pitch at Double A. Rutherford would still be in Single A, Kaprielian won't pitch until summer, and Fowler is suing Chicago for his messed-up knee. (It's a testimonial to how great a prospect he is/was that he still made the 100.) 

Generally, I believe teams who trade prospects get more for their buck in winter. There is nothing worse than trying to fill a hole at the trade deadline, when contending teams are held for ransom. (And next July 31 could be a horror show - Machado, Donaldson, even Bryce Harper could all be on the block.) 

Still, it's hard to fault the deals of last July. Crapola or not, the prospect rankings show a Yankee farm system so deep that prospects simply must be traded. Crazy, eh? Still, the fear remains: Doug Drabek, Fred McGriff, Jay Buhner, et al. Will the Yankees play their prospects or revert to the ways of viewing them as trade chips? Thus far, Brian Cashman seems to get it. We are winning the parlor games of winter.