Has he? I've never seen him say anything to that effect. In his most recent chat on BA - he said he thought that Bard has the arm to be a closer, but he didn't insinuate that that was where he thought he'd end up.

Tom(Boston): If Bard signs with the redsox does he become their top pitching prospect? What type of a player do you see him becoming?

Jim Callis: The Red Sox are getting close to signing Daniel Bard, which would leave Max Scherzer (Diamondbacks) as the lone unsigned first-rounder. In my mind, no, he would not be their top pitching prospect. I'm not the biggest Bard fan in the world. He throws hard, but he doesn't do much else that lights you up. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he winds up as a reliever in the long run.

No link as it was quoted in a Yankees forum. The post was from 8/30/06 though, so it should be either that day or within a couple days of that.

Just for kicks...

If you start with the 1996 draft (AZ's first draft) and compare AZ and LA in their ability to draft and develop pitchers

LA: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/LAD/draft.shtml

1996:
Ted Lilly (traded to MTL 1998)
Wayne Franklyn
Jeff Kubenka

1997:
Steve Colyer

1998:
Scott Proctor

1999:
Eric Junge

2000:
Ben Diggins
Shane Nance

2001:
Edwin Jackson

2002:
Jonathan Broxton
Eric Stults

2003:
Chad Billingsley

The Dodgers AAA team plays in the bioggest launching pad in the minors and they haven't had any particular difficulty in developing pitchers.

I'm sorry, kevin, you were saying something but it sounded like garbage. Can you repeat?

AZ: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ARI/draft.shtml

1996:
John Patterson (signed as a free agent, so not a draftee, technically)
Nick Bierbrodt
Brad Penny
Eric Knott
Eric Sabel

1997:
none

1998:
Javier Lopez
Andrew Good
Bret Prinz
Mike Koplove

1999:
Casey Daigle
Chris Capuano

2000:
Brandon Webb
Brian Bruney
Doug Slaten

2001:
Jason Bulger
Mike Gosling
Brandon Medders

2002:
Lance Cormier
Dustin Nippert

2003:
none

If you're having trouble developing pitchers, I would look to the scouting department or development staff first. It sounds like AZ is looking for excuses there.

The Dbacks have taken steps to make sure their pitcher development program yields better results. That's actually one of the main changes that Byrnes initiated once he arrived. And one of the first key steps was having important pitching prospects skip Lancaster.

Because, kevin, you used the Dodgers as an example of a team that has to deal with a tough environment for pitchers (in this case, AAA) and still manage to develop tons of pitchers. In fact, I'll repeat your words:

The Dodgers AAA team plays in the bioggest launching pad in the minors and they haven't had any particular difficulty in developing pitchers.

I'm just pointing out that while it's possible to develop pitchers by passing them to a grinder like the stadia in the cal league and the pcl, it's actually more difficult than you imagine.

Now, the Red Sox do have an amazing $100 million player development machine, so I'm sure they'll manage to overcome the problems that an environment like Lancaster creates for pitching prospects.

Dan has a weighted park factor of 1.22 for Lancaster from 2004-2006. That's not quite Coors at its worse bad, but it's very close. I wouldn't mind if the Sox send their two top pitching prospects their for a year...

Question: who is Byrnes going to assign to clean the #### off the mound when these pampered poodles make their first outing in Arizona?

I gather you're retired and fully available.

The Dbacks pitchers do have to go through a tough pitching environment in AAA. What Josh Byrnes thinks may not have any relevance to how the Red Sox, or any other organization, decide to manage their pitchers.

My main point, which you've been trying to disprove with buIIsh!t arguments, is that sending your really promising young pitchers through Lancaster appears to hurt them more than it helps them. I'm basing that on my observations of what had been happening in the Dbacks minor league system.

You can call the Dbacks prospects whatever you want, but your arguments are full of hot air.

kyle c, that's also a 1.22 pf in a huge hitter's league. it's a very extreme park.

Dan has a weighted park factor of 1.22 for Lancaster from 2004-2006. That's not quite Coors at its worse bad, but it's very close. I wouldn't mind if the Sox send their two top pitching prospects their for a year...

Trust me, they'll be fine. I think kids get a little shook when they see that future #1 tag given to C-Buck.

Based on my (rather limited, to be fair) research into the stadium in Lancaster, it truly favors left handed hitters (the rf fence makes Yankee stadium seem cavernous) and it also allows RH pull hitters to curve the ball around the foul pole fairly easily. As far as I can tell, the pitchers who can survive there are usually lefties who have good control and can keep the ball down and on the outer part of the plate.

C-Buck?

TempleUSox, I'm not saying that they'll go into career ending shock the moment they arrive in Lancaster; I'm just saying that the Red Sox would probably be better off skipping their top prospects directly to AA ball when they've mastered low A ball.

OTOH, Lancaster would probably make Sox Nation go crazy over 24 year old college 2Bmen who'll look Ruthian over there. I can't wait for the numerous BA chats: "Jim, Dustin Natale hit .342 with 17 homers in Lancaster; how can you say he's not a future HOFer?"

the jethawks vs LHB this year:

BA/OBP/SLG/OPS allowed:

0.324/0.412/0.499/.911

So basically it turns every lhb into Todd Helton. Nice.

no longer possible to develop pitchers

Its possiable but its tougher when your putting them in situations where they have to work a lot harder to get outs.

TempleUSox, I'm not saying that they'll go into career ending shock the moment they arrive in Lancaster; I'm just saying that the Red Sox would probably be better off skipping their top prospects directly to AA ball when they've mastered low A ball.

The park is going to affect their numbers; that's a given. But I'm sure it will emphasized and re-emphasized by the entire minor league support staff that the only thing that matters is the pitch from the mound to home plate. Both of these pitchers have been commended ad nauseum for their composure and poise on the mound, so if other pitchers have been able to succeed in Lancaster, I don't see why they can't.

Brandon Webb's stint in Lancaster in 2001 (age 22):

162 1/3 IP, 174 H, 44 BB, 158 K, 9 (!!!) HR, 90 R, 72 ER, 3.99 ERA

Fwiw, Brad Penny totally dominated when he was in High Desert in the Cal League.

TempleUSox, I'm not disagreeing with you. But as much as a coach encourages them, when they get hit hard every time out, it messes up with their head. I've communicated with people who know some of the AZ pitching prospects in high A well, and the pitchers absolutely hate it there. And they feel that the park does mess up their "stuff". It can't be too good for your self-confidence when you're used to succeeding in the past, and now you're being slapped around every start.

Again, how Bed&Breakfast; will do there remains to be seen. How it'll affect them long term also remains to be seen. I still maintain, however, that the Sox would be better off not sending them to Lancaster to begin with.

I wouldn't be too concerned with their heads, I'd just be worried they overthrow to compensate for the park and become more likely to get injured.

Also, a possible case of a park screwing up a pitcher?

Edwin Jackson

What happened to him? Top prospect with great stuff, great stats, has a fantastic MLB debut at 19, then goes back to AAA and just sucks. Hasn't been good since then either.

Kevin - but it doesn't create an illusion on pitchers confidence. Or on pitchers ability to trust there stuff, or on the number of pitches a pitcher needs to get out of an inning. Well the first two are speculative, but reasonable... the third is pretty tough to argue with.

That's proof? It sounds more like moving to Chavez Ravine was the thing that ruined him. Isn't it just a tad possible that he injured himself, and that's the thing that has hindered his development?

Yes it's proof, which is why I asked if it's possible that's what happened and then asked what did happen to him. I wonder, though, if a pitcher is more likely to injure themselves pitching in a great hitter's park. I don't know the answer to it, but there are plenty of good reasons to suspect pitching in such an extreme run environment can negatively impact a pitcher longterm.

joel hanrahan had a tough time adjusting to the hitters parks in the LAD system too. i think they actually let billingsley skip them for the most part.

You haven't produced one iota of objective evidence than one pitcher has been aversely affected by having to pich in a hitters park in the minors.

Well, you haven't produced one iota of objective evidence that a pitcher does NOT get aversely affected by having to pitch in a hitters park in the minors.

Show me one pitcher who's career was derailed by having to pitch in Lancaster. Go ahead, detail just one case (this ought to be good).

Well, pretty much by definition they'd have to be Dbacks pitchers, no? Unless you want me to go way way back. I was going to have a more detailed look but sports-wired has deactivated their links for Lancaster

http://www.sports-wired.com/teams/team_10272.shtml

MILB.com does have the Lancaster stats for 2005 and 2006 though. Looking through those


2005

2006

You can see that pitchers don't do very well there. A couple of lefties (Matt Chico in 05 AND 06, Greg Smith in 06) did pretty well.

Garrett Mock, AZ's 3rd rounder in 2004, whom many felt had first round talent, barely survived Lancaster, and his 4.18 ERA was hiding a lot of unearned runs. Matt Green, another high pick (in 2005) really struggled in 2006. You can look through the list in 2005 and 2006, and note that many of those pitchers were fairly high picks by the Dbacks; most of them were fairly polished college pitchers who should've done well in A ball.

Mock, in particular, was really hurt by Lancaster, imho. Despite having good stuff and four solid pitches, he came out of high A basically being a nibbler. And he couldn't find any success in AA this year. Matt Green is another pitcher whom the Dbacks really liked and felt he should be doing well. He hit a huge bump in high A. I am not optimistic of his chances in 07.

Btw, I encourage you to look through the stats of the pitchers in Lancaster in 05 and 06. Look at their hit rates, home run rates, everything. Get used to it. You'll be seeing a lot of these stats associated with prized Red Sox prospects.

***

Now, Jered Weaver only had 33 IP in high A. I suppose he survived High A ball. But Weaver was a top pitcher, the best pitcher in 2004. And he didn't exactly dominate high A ball either, with 3.82 ERA (18 runs, 14 earned runs). It's not shocking that someone of Weaver's caliber could make it thru 30 innings of high A ball... and mind you, Lancaster wasn't his home field.

I'm not saying that TOP pitching prospects with EXCEPTIONAL stuff cannot do well in the CAL league, or in Lancaster. Penny did really well in '99, Felix did well with Inland Empire, Webb did well with Lancaster. Weaver did OK in 33 innings. May be you are arguing that B&B are of the same caliber as these pitchers? Maybe you're right. Or maybe you're crazy


Anyhow, this is turning into a much bigger deal than I wanted to make it. My main point was that the Red Sox may be better off NOT sending their top pitching prospects to Lancaster. You are obviously too dumb to understand that I'm not claiming EVERYONE gets irreversibly damaged in Lancaster; I'm claiming that spending a season pitching in Lancaster won't help. That's all.

Kevin,

Reports at the time were blaming Albequerque. It appeared that Jackson lost faith in his fastball - either it became too straight, or every time there was contact (recall at the time he used to pitch at 95-98 for seven or eight innings), it went out...

The Dodgers specifically sent him back to Jacksonville to get him to regain the confidence to work off his fastball.

Now that's not definitive proof that hitters environments make development harder for pitchers (and I agree with a lot of what you're saying), it's just that E. Jackson is a point in favour of your opposition.

Matt, if a young pitcher is so insecure that he gets irrevocably shook up over a cheap homer or two, then he doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to survive in the bigs anyway.

Well, kevin, not every 20 or 21 year old has your manly manlihood and balls the size of oranges.

Also, this probably won't convince Kevin that Josh Byrnes has any clue how to develop pitchers, but the Dbacks wanted to get out of Lancaster after last year, despite having had a great working relationship with the team there, and chose to move to Visalia, despite the fact that the stadium in Visalia is a dump and is being completely renovated over the next couple of years. Helping the pitching prospects in high A was one of the reasons. It's not guaranteed that Visalia would help AZ's pitchers, but it certainly won't hurt them nearly as bad as Lancaster did. I suppose we'll see.

Sorry to add another post on this topic, but I think the analogy to Coors which was brought up earlier could be useful. Imagine having to send your pitchers to Coors for a year before graduating them to the majors--and that's before the humidor there.

Even a few months of the Coors experience ruined a couple of previously established and successful pitchers, such as Mike Hampton and Danny Neagle. If it could happen to them, why couldn't it happen to a couple of 21 year olds who are learning to pitch?

Kev - we've named a number through the thread and you've said simply not possiable. We disagree... I'd much rather see the Sox minor league affiliates be less extreme hitter parks. If that isn't possiable I don't know if its better to throw them to the wolves or to try and adjust their developmental curve... I just dont know... it's not clear to me.

One way or the other it's just guess work at this point.

Kev - we've named a number through the thread and you've said simply not possiable. We disagree... I'd much rather see the Sox minor league affiliates be less extreme hitter parks. If that isn't possiable I don't know if its better to throw them to the wolves or to try and adjust their developmental curve... I just dont know... it's not clear to me.

One way or the other it's just guess work at this point.

Well, pretty much by definition they'd have to be Dbacks pitchers, no?

No. There are lots of reasons why Arizona is having trouble developing pitchers that don't have to rely on supernatural claims of park effects.

See, in post 122, you asked:

Show me one pitcher who's career was derailed by having to pitch in Lancaster. Go ahead, detail just one case (this ought to be good).

You want me to go and collect info on every pitcher who wasn't in the Dbacks system but pitched a significant number of games at Lancaster?

The Dbacks haven't been one of the best systems as far as pitcher development is concerned, but to go out of your way to deny park effects is plain stupid.

Well, if I had made an indefensible claim about park factors, I'd want to drop the discussion too.

One, the claim isn't indefensible. Park factors exist, and they can be measured. And there's certainly a way to do a study on how pitchers are affected in Lancaster. It's pretty clear (and it has been shown) that Lancaster is an extreme hitters park in an very good hitters league. I also gave you examples (you asked for one, remember, one) of pitchers who were highly touted and very talented over the last couple of years who really appear to have been affected negatively by pitching in Lancaster. I do not have the time, the stats, or the desire to do a "controlled study" just to disprove your arguments.

In all honesty, you are the one making indefensible clamins here, and you should've been the one to drop out hours ago. Would've saved everyone here a bunch of money on our car insurance.

I'm not the one making grandiose and idiotic claims concerning minor league hitting environments.

Yes, you are. You're claiming that minor league environments, no matter how tough on pitchers or friendly to hitters they are, have no negative impact on pitching prospects. That indeed is a grandiose and rather idiotic claim.

Why aren't you lamenting the fact that leaving Lancaster will crush the confidence of all those great Arizona hitting prospects? Aren't you worried about having the team move to a much poorer hitting environment?

I never based my opinions on AZ hitting prospects based on how they did in Lancaster. It's been well known to everyone that Lancaster is a great hitter's park, and that you have to take all of the stats there with a grain of salt.

The really good AZ prospects will do very well outside of Lancaster anyhow; the ones with flaws won't. It's that simple. Jackson and Quentin and Drew and Montero and Reynolds did well outside of Lancaster; Jamie D'Antona and Jon Zeringue and Sergio Santos didn't.

In fact, I'm glad that AZ won't be using Lancaster anymore; it'll make it easier to evaluate hitters, and it'll prepare them better for life in AA and above. If anything, Lancaster hurt many of the borderline hitters as much as it hurt the pitchers.

If there is this infectious disease out there called "hitters park hypoxia" that afflicts young pitchers who pass through lancaster (or Albuquerque or Salt Lake City or Tucson), then there should be some solid evidence to support it.

I won't be surprised if there is such an infectious disease. No one has bothered to look for it systematically. ecause no one has done a systematic study on it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I gave you some evidence for the Lancaster park effects on pitchers; you went out of your way to ridicule them. Whatever, no skin off my teeth.

In fact, I'm now really looking forward to see how Boston's pitching prospects do next year in high A. That'll be fun.

Btw, kevin, how do you explain what happened to, say, Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle once they arrived in COL, big contracts in hands? Just curious

The real question Kevin needs to answer is, why are the Celtics 1-5?

The real question Kevin needs to answer is, why are the Celtics 1-5?

Fleet Center Hypoxia

Quick. Very quick.

If you call that proof, then you don't know what the definition of proof is.

If you think I was actually saying it's proof, you're even a bigger idiot than I thought, which is saying quite a bit.

You seem to be confused with two entirely distinct concepts: 1) park effects (I don't and have never denied park effects) and 2) that park effects can inhibit a young pitchers development.

No, I can tell the difference between the two of them. We both agree on (1). I'm giving you evidence (granted, not rigorously studied and analyzed) that Lancaster does seem to inhibit young pitchers development. I'm also pointing out that the Dbacks front office arrived at the same conclusion when the looked into it more seriously last year, after Byrnes became the GM, and they decided to NOT send their most promising prospects to high A.

Others on this thread have given you examples of promising pitchers who appear to have suffered long term from having to deal with extreme hitting environments. Now, I don't care at all whether you think these points are hooey or not. In fact, I don't really care what you think about anything, period.

What do they have to do with the subject? 1) Colorado isn't a minor league park 2) Hampton and Neagle weren't minor leaguers when they went there. 3) They both signed multiyear contracts to play there. You're confused again.

What a buIIsh!t copout answer. Bravo, kevin, bravo.

How about this: 1) Colorado is (was, actually) an extreme hitter's park; 2) Hampton and Neagle were very good pitchers who were very negatively affected by it, and Hampton appears to have been affected long term; he wasn't nearly as good as before in once in ATL; 3) the multi-year deal...? What? What does it have anything to do with it?

I'm using this as example of how very good major leaguers (not some high A pitchers who are still very much developing) can become negatively affected by an extreme hitting environment, and it can affect them long term. Hampton, imho, is a great example. My point is that something very analagous to the long term effect of Coors on pitchers occurs in Lancaster.

Now, again, I really don't care if you agree with me or not.

Fwiw, an interesting quote from O'Dowd here:

http://www.salon.com/news/sports/col/kaufman/2002/04/09/rockies/index.html

"I think that Coors Field can get to you mentally, pitching-wise, because it can change you at times from being the kind of pitcher you are," [O'Dowd] said. "Meaning that if you're a guy who relies on heavy movement, then all of a sudden in the hot summer months, what I've learned over the last two years is that because of the lack of humidity the ball really dries out. It almost begins to feel like a cue ball. So it's difficult to just have that natural movement that you have other places. So if you try to start creating movement, where you never had to do that in your career in the past, that can mess you up, because it can change your mechanics and your style of pitching, and mentally it can change who you are a little bit. So yeah. It's not an easy place to figure out."

Imagine being 21 year old in the Coors of high A ball. Good luck with that.

Kevin,

Well, there you go. He isn't pitching effectively anymore because his fastball straightened out. That's a much more straightforward explanation than these mysterious psychological phobias about park effects.

If the thought at the time was that the altitude straightened out his fastball, you can see how pitching at altitude hurt his development, right?

Jackson had effectively dominated the GCL, SAL, FSL and Southern League before he had turned 20, despite not starting to pitch until his senior year of HS (note: he was the 3rd best pitcher in his school's rotation, WOW). He then had a pretty good month in the big leagues.

But all of those parks were/are at sea level. He then starts the following year in a severe hitter's park in a hitter's league, and loses faith in his fastball. He becomes a nibbler, despite the ability to throw 98 MPH.

When presented with him as evidence (note that I distinguished between evidence and proof) that pitching at severe altitude can retard development, you responded with:

That's proof? It sounds more like moving to Chavez Ravine was the thing that ruined him. Isn't it just a tad possible that he injured himself, and that's the thing that has hindered his development?

Do you disavow that statement?

Futher evidence: After Jackson's confidence crumbled in Albequerque, the Dodgers proceed to skip their next two best prospects over AAA (they have moved to Vegas, as I'm sure you know, but it's not much better). Both Billigsley and Broxton went direct from Jacksonville to LA, while the better hitters were allowed to go to the PCL.

You have to really strain to avoid seeing the Dodgers' experience in the PCL (and Albequerque in particular) as a point in favour of keeping your better pitching prospects away from the mini-Coors environments in the minors.

Because, kevin,

It sounds more like moving to Chavez Ravine was the thing that ruined him

.

JC, are you going to force me to invoke the name of Isiah Thomas again? I know you don't want me to do it, and you know I know you don't want me to do it. So why are you being such a masochist?

Right now, Thomas's team has twice as many wins as Ainge's. And, of course, I expect nothing from NY this year, whereas some Celtics fans were talking big #### about what the Kelts would do this year.

It's probably Celts fans' jealousy that they've never had a Coach/GM of as fine a caliber as Isiah. Now that he's a Knick, he seems to be able to do no wrong.

Well, if idiocy was in the the Olympics, you'd be a gold medal winner. Le me quote you:

Here, maybe you should read this:

sar?casm? [sahr-kaz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

Okay, read it again. When you think you understand, read it another time. After you've done that have someone with two brain cells to rub together come explain it to you with cute little pictures that you might actually understand.

I proposed that Jackson may be an example of a pitcher hurt by pitching in an extreme hitters' park. I said I'm not sure what happened to him, and I asked if anybody knew what did. Somehow, you took this as me claiming it was absolutely the park that hurt him. I would guess your parents are brother and sister for you to be dumb enough to think I was suggesting it was proof, but that'd be an insult to the imbred mentally challenged children across the world.

Marlins, who usually have their best propects jump AAA, sent Petit to Alberquerque. It will be intersting to see how he pitches in the major leagues this year.

Blue Jays are up. This system is easily the worst in the AL East - Thigpen, a sort of OK catching prospect, being #5 should tell you something. Lind can rake, but it's good he's in the DH league.

Toronto doesn't yet have a rookie-league affiliate (they dropped Pulaski), so it's going to be interesting to see where the Jays send Fuenmayor, who doesn't turn 17 until the end of this month. He could end up in the DSL.

-- MWE

Easily? New York's system is OK, but nothing special. Baltimore's is pretty poor. Lind's a first-rate hitting prospect at this point. So is Snider. If you run the hitting prospect charts and pitching prospect charts separately, you should find that the Jays have a better farm system than the other two with respect to hitters and a lesser farm system with respect to pitchers.

You have to attach a huge amount of weight to Grade A pitching prospects to come to the view that the Yankee and Oriole farm systems are much better, I think. Personally, I'd rather have two Grade Bs than a Grade A, and the Jay farm system continues to have plenty of Grade B and B- pitching prospects. A top 10 list doesn't really help with understanding that, and BA is not really interested in pitchers without some outstanding tools.

Personally, I'd rather have two Grade Bs than a Grade A

I'm the exact opposite. I'd much, much rather have the Grade A guy. Tabata and Hughes are both more valuable than everyone in the Jays' organization by far; that alone (in my book anyway) puts the Yanks ahead. The O's system is worse, but still has Billy Rowell and some good young arms. I think it's interesting to see the jays finally went away from a college guy in the first round, and it ended up paying off for them (at least so far).

You have to attach a huge amount of weight to Grade A pitching prospects to come to the view that the Yankee and Oriole farm systems are much better, I think.

I do put a lot of weight on having Grade A pitching prospects. It is incredibly hard to find someone with staff ace potential.

I like Lind and Snyder, but every one after that comes with a question mark. The Yankees (Tabata) and Orioles (Rowell) have a hitting prospect with as much upside as Snyder, and at least 3-4 pitching prospects (each) who have more going for them than any Blue Jay pitching prospect at this stage - to take an example, I'd rather have Tyler Clippard or Garrett Olson than any Toronto pitching prospect.

-- MWE

The problem is that Grade A major league hitters, the Frank Thomases and Manny Ramirezes and Alex Rodriguezes and Barry Bondses, come to a very great extent from the pool of Grade A hitting prospects. Not so for pitchers. The Grade A pitchers, your Roger Clemenses, Randy Johnsons, Greg Madduxes and Tom Glavines, do not come from the pool of Grade A pitching prospects to anywhere near the same extent.

The reason is simple. Injury, which afflicts pitching prospects much more often. Dustin McGowan was considered one of the top 5-10 pitching prospects in baseball 2 years by BA, among others. Now, he wouldn't make a top 100. I have John Sickels prospect book from 2005. The pitching prospects from 1-20 do not really look much better now than the prospects from 30-50. Not so at all from the hitters.

Rowell and Tabata may have as much upside as Snider, but both have less chance of actually achieving it. Neither the O's nor the Yankees have a second hitter of anything like Lind's caliber.

The Jays' system is obviously not a strong one. Its greatest weakness, in my view, is the lack of talent in the middle infield and centerfield. The Yankees and O's systems are similarly weak.

"Toronto doesn't yet have a rookie-league affiliate (they dropped Pulaski)..."

That's bizarre. Any word as to why?

Rowell and Tabata may have as much upside as Snider, but both have less chance of actually achieving it. Neither the O's nor the Yankees have a second hitter of anything like Lind's caliber.

How do you figure? Tabata is younger and played the whole season at a higher level. Rowell is also younger and did just about as well at Snider at the same level, plus played well when moved up a level for a few games. I'd say Tabata is a better bet than Snider at this point; Rowell may be a step behind, but it's a very small step.

Rowell and Tabata may have as much upside as Snider, but both have less chance of actually achieving it. Neither the O's nor the Yankees have a second hitter of anything like Lind's caliber.

Do I read this correctly - that you think Snider is a better prospect than Rogell or Tabata? If I do read that correctly then I strongly disagree.

If I was going to make a top 10 of the 3 orgs combined it would look like this:
1) Hughes
2) Tabata
3) Rogell
4) Lind
5) Betances
6) Erbe
7) Chamberlain
8) Snider
9) Neimold
10)Beato

I think Lind is a heck of a lot closer to Chamberlain/Neimold than Tabata or Rogell.

To talk about a team with a great farm system instead...will Delmon Young still be considered a prospect by BA? If not, Brignac will be #1 I assume, or does Longoria's performance put him there?

That's bizarre. Any word as to why?

No official word. I've heard cost.

Rowell and Tabata may have as much upside as Snider, but both have less chance of actually achieving it. Neither the O's nor the Yankees have a second hitter of anything like Lind's caliber.

I'd argue that Rowell and Tabata have a "better" chance of achieving their upside than does Snider, primarily because Snider's already physically mature (more or less) while both Tabata and Rowell still have room to develop. Snider's already at a point where if he adds much more he'll be forced to 1B (he may wind up there anyway, although the Jays will keep him in the OF as long as they can).

-- MWE

will Delmon Young still be considered a prospect by BA?

He came up 4 ABs short of 130, so he's still rookie-eligible and will be considered a prospect for 2007.

The real question is where will Elijah Dukes show up. He was #5 a year ago, behind Young, Niemann, Hammel, and Brignac.

-- MWE

Rowell's performance in Rookie League gave us no clue whether he's going to hit like Joe Randa or like George Brett. Snider crushed the ball. Tabata is 5'11", 160 lbs at age 17. He hit well enough in low A ball, but his development is uncertain.

Yes, I think that Snider is a better prospect than Rowell or Tabata. Their ceilings have very different shapes, but are comparable, and Snider has a greater chance of achieving it. My money's always has been on the bat, from Manny Ramirez to Frank Thomas. Snider's chance of being a very good player at age 35 is not great, due to his physique, but everything else about him is positive.

No official word. I've heard cost.
Me too. (Well, I read it somewhere.)

Dick Scott, the Jays farm director, indicated that it was not cost considerations, but rather that the players they were drafting/signing were more suited to the NYPL or the DSL.

http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20060927204025817

The wisdom of the decision to go with 5 affiliates can be easily challenged, particularly with the changes in the new CBA. High school pitching becomes more attractive to draft because of the 5 year development time outside the 40 man roster. The additional year allows teams to balance workload control and pitching development more effectively than the colleges may do. High school pitchers are better off starting in Rookie League. It wouldn't surprise me if something happens in the Gulf Coast League.

Dukes is #6.

Their ceilings have very different shapes, but are comparable, and Snider has a greater chance of achieving it.

Snider's numbers in the Appy were achieved at one of the best hitters' parks in that league. His road OPS was .840 - which isn't terrible, mind you, but does tend to temper one's enthusiasm a bit.

Snider is an excellent prospect; he was rated ahead of Rowell by BA, and people are still projecting him to add power. But I think it's fair to ask whether he's already as physically mature as he's going to get, and how much room for real growth there is. BA lists him at 5-11, 245, which makes me think at least a little of John Kruk (although Kruk wasn't quite that big, actually). Ramirez and Thomas aren't especially good "physical" comps; the young Manny was a lot more wiry, filling out later, and Thomas was taller and not quite as bulky (he's 6-5 and was about 250 when he first came out, although he's in the 270s now). I don't know that we have a really good role model for someone like Snider.

Manny's age 19 numbers in the Appy, FWIW, are more impressive than Snider's, although Manny was a year older. He slugged over 100 points higher, and did it in a ballpark (Burlington NC) that, while it is favorable to hitters, is quite a bit *less* favorable than Pulaski.

-- MWE

Devil Rays are up.

Joel Guzman in the top 10, and Talbot and Sonnanstine nowhere to be found? Was anyone watching Guzman play at the end of the year? He has no defensive position, and his bat speed has disappeared.

-- MWE

Mike,

When I see Snider, I see Brad Wilkerson.

The downside is that I see Wilkerson now (Age 26/27) and not Wilkerson at 18.....

damn, the d-rays prospects are great. i didn't realize niemann had as nice a season as he did in AA, but he really needs to spend a whole year healthy before i get excited about him. still, he and jake mcgee could firm up the d-ray rotation in a hurry.

i've heard from other scoutier types that they're increasingly confident in sonnanstine's ability to be a major league starter. did you see him a lot this year, mike?

did you see him a lot this year, mike?

Only once, thanks to the Southern League's unbalanced schedule. Sonnanstine doesn't blow you away, but he clearly knows what he's doing out there, his stuff is better than advertised, and he keeps getting hitters out. It's hard not to like that, although it's also hard to project him out to the front of the staff. Niemann's clearly more talented, and I've heard nothing but raves about McGee.

-- MWE

Bill Ballew chat:

Wade Townsend is in the 15-20 range, basically because of his health.

Iwamura would be in the middle of the top 10. As I mentioned on his thread, he's apparently willing to move to 2B or CF.

Dukes is trade bait; the Marlins are reportedly interested in either Dukes or Baldelli.

Elliot Johnson has made great strides defensively at 2B and with the bat; he could be a mid-2007 callup.

Josh Hamilton (obviously) needs to move quickly. A good ST could land him in Montgomery. (I'd guess Vero Beach is more likely, though.)

Tampa does not have a good feel for what they have in Guzman. His performance was nowhere near his reputation, and he could be gone as quickly as he arrived.

Wes Bankston's development has slowed, and his conditioning has been questioned. Given the offseason moves that Tampa is making (which may push Cantu to 1B), his window with the Rays is closing.

Sonnanstine really doesn't stack up to the other young arms in the organization; his expected ceiling is back end of the rotation.

-- MWE

Joel Guzman in the top 10, and Talbot and Sonnanstine nowhere to be found? Was anyone watching Guzman play at the end of the year? He has no defensive position, and his bat speed has disappeared.

What happened to Guzman? He was hitting 297/353/464 before the trade (yes, in Albequerque in the PCL, but that's still quite respectable for a 21-year-old), but he looked lost as a Devil Ray. I don't recall an injury, but he only managed ~450 PA; is that related to his late-season crash?

Wes Bankston's development has slowed, and his conditioning has been questioned. Given the offseason moves that Tampa is making (which may push Cantu to 1B), his window with the Rays is closing.

Moving Cantu out of the middle infield would be a sign that the organization is learning. It's going to be fun watching this club over the next 5-7 years.

He was hitting 297/353/464 before the trade (yes, in Albequerque in the PCL, but that's still quite respectable for a 21-year-old), but he looked lost as a Devil Ray.

He was. Lots of popups, lots of strikeouts, lots of errors and bad plays. No bat speed whatsoever - he just looked *slow*. There have also been some rumors that he's a difficult personality (which is just what the Rays need in their organization).

-- MWE

AL Central will start Monday.

BA did a top 20 Arizona Fall League list and a top 15 list for Hawaii Winter Ball. Both articles are premium articles. Troy Tulowitzki (COL) was #1 among the AFL prospects, and Joba Chamberlain (NYY) ranked #1 in HWB. The Yankees got three pitching prospects (Chamberlain, Jeff Marquez, and Ian Kennedy) into the HWB top 10.

-- MWE

White Sox are up, but the link has the D'Rays list; it'll be fixed eventually.

The actual top 10 are:

OF Ryan Sweeney
3B Josh Fields
P Lance Broadway
P Kyle McCulloch
P Charlie Haeger (shocked that he's this high)
OF Aaron Cunningham
P Adam Russell
P Lucas Harrell
P Matt Long
1B Chris Carter

Here again, the quality drops off very quickly after the top 2. Russell probably has the most upside of the rest of the top 10, but also is the least advanced; there's been some talk about making him into a reliever, but for now he's going to remain in the rotation and the White Sox will try to get a couple of his secondary pitches working.

-- MWE

Another Chris Carter, 1B? Kenny W is stealing AZ's thunder. Can this one actually play defense?

Another Chris Carter, 1B? Kenny W is stealing AZ's thunder. Can this one actually play defense?

No. All he does is catch touchdowns.

Another Chris Carter, 1B?

This one is actually a Vernon - Vernon Christopher Carter. 15th rounder in '05, out of a Las Vegas HS and originally drafted as a 3B, he played 1B almost exclusively this year (which should tell you about his D). The White Sox started him at Kannapolis, where he bombed (along with almost the entire rest of the team). After they sent him back to Great Falls, he led the Pioneer League in HR despite losing one when he passed a teammate on the basepaths.

The guy I liked most at Great Falls (other than McCulloch) is John Shelby, sone of the former major leaguer known as T-Bone. Shelby, a middle infielder who projects as a 2B, hit .275/.335/.434 for Great Falls, and made pretty consistent contact with a fair amount of pop. He was old for the league at 21, so he'll have to move up quickly, but there are going to be plenty of opportunities in this organization.

-- MWE

Haeger's listed as high as he is for two reasons. 1) He was really good in his September call-up with the Sox. 2) He keeps the ball in the park. I don't know how he does it, but it appears to be a skill. If you're going to allow as many baserunners as Haeger, you have to keep the ball in the park to survive.

Here's my own list. Let me know what you think, Mike.

I'm not high on Russell at all. All I see is Jon Rauch, middle reliever.

Haeger's listed as high as he is for two reasons. 1) He was really good in his September call-up with the Sox. 2) He keeps the ball in the park. I don't know how he does it, but it appears to be a skill. If you're going to allow as many baserunners as Haeger, you have to keep the ball in the park to survive.

I can't think of too many other organizations (the Nationals, I guess) in which BA would have Haeger top-10, let alone top-5. I'm not disagreeing with the choice, mind you, but given the ceilings of the pitchers who ranked below him - Russell, Harrell, and Egbert (who didn't top-10), I'm just surprised that BA put him where they did.

Here's my own list.

Once you get past Broadway on the list, there's a lot of room for argument about the White Sox. The only question I'd have is Perez at #10; I realize there's not a lot of love for Russell, but he's far more likely IMO to contribute to a major league bullpen than Perez, who's not a true power guy despite the K's.

-- MWE

I basically agree with BA's list, with a few minor quibbles. It's good to see Aaron Cunningham get some love; I'd rank him fifth over Haeger. Also, I don't think Matt Long should be in the top 10; I'd put Oneli Perez there instead.

If one were to give Sickels-type grades to Sox prospects, would this be accurate?
Sweeney: B+
Fields: B
Broadway: B
McCulloch: B-
Cunningham: B-
The rest: C+ or lower.

Or is that being way too optimistic?

Indians are up.

After he was promoted to high Class A, Drennen also found it hard to avoid the spotlight as the subject of an upcoming documentary on his rise through the minors.

Drennen is one subject of the documentary; the other is Tony Schrager, a career minor leaguer who was in Carolina for a while earlier this year. I met the filmmaker when he was at Zebulon; it's basically a "year-in-the-life" kind of thing.

I'd probably have put Cabrera in the top-10 instead of Huff. Overall, this group could be very good, but could also have a lot of guys who flame out short of the majors. Miller and Lofgren are a nice one-two, but after them there's a lot of low-ceiling talent.

-- MWE

I was going to ask about Cabrera. I'm not a subscriber, but am curious as to why he didn't make the top 10. I know he didn't hit at all last year, but he was a 20 year old in AAA, and BA has him as the top defensive player in the organization.

Chris Kline's comment about Cabrera in the chat:

there are also body and bat questions with Cabrera. He has very long actions to everything he does defensively and needs to adhere to a strict conditioning program if he's going to be a factor.

But he was, in fact, pretty good for a 20-YO MIF in AAA. He just needs to get stronger, I think.

Other highlights from Kline:

Scott Radinsky is moving from Akron to Buffalo as pitching coach, primarily to keep working with Miller (and I'd guess Sipp as well).

Max Ramirez's defense behind the plate was brutal (which is why the Tribe got him for what they did, IMO) and he's probably not going to stay there. Kline compared him to Olmedo Saenz.

Kouzmanoff would have made the top 10 before the trade.

Kline and I agree on this: the Indians don't have real blue-chippers, but have a lot of guys who could develop into solid everyday players.

-- MWE

Tigers are up.

Maybin is apparently going to skip high-A ball and start 2007 in Erie. I think that makes sense; challenge him early, with the option of sending him to Lakeland if he struggles. The strikeouts are a bit of a concern for me (I like a ratio better than 1:4) but they aren't excessively bad.

Miller's also going to open with Erie. I think that's also wise, although I think he could probably handle AAA. My general philosophy is that teams should challenge hitters and treat pitchers more cautiously (which is the opposite of the way a number of teams typically handle their prospects).

-- MWE

"Gorkys", eh? That's a new one on me...

Royals are up.

Biggest difference w/ Sickels here is that Bianchi doesn't make BA's top 10, and Cordier does. Cordier's #17 on Sickels's list, but he's also a C+, and there's not a lot of difference between #17 and #10 (Buckner, also a C+). I wouldn't put Cordier top-10 because of the elbow injury; even though he doesn't have structural damage and doesn't need TJ surgery (yet), the elbow difficulties are a huge red flag to me, especially after the knee injury has already cost him a year.

-- MWE

even though he doesn't have structural damage and doesn't need TJ surgery (yet)

That's what I get for not doing the homework myself :(

Matt Meyers corrected the Cordier entry in the chat:

Originally, when I made my calls for this list in September I was told that while Cordier had elbow soreness, he had gone to a bunch of different doctors and it was determined he did not need surgery. However, that apparently changed and he has had Tommy John surgery since we went to press and will not pitch again until 2008.

...which I could have discovered in a quick search.

-- MWE

Matt Meyers in the Royals chat said he didn't know if any organization could match the top 3 of the Royals. Not an absurd statement by any means, but it could make for a good debate. Would you rather have Gordon, Hochevar, and Butler or Young, Longoria, and Brignac?

Definitely the KC top 3 for now. But I'm curious to see how Longoria fares this year, he could close that gap on Gordon very quickly.

Damn, TB is loaded.

I'd rather have Tampa's trio, myself. I'd put them in this order:

Gordon
Young
Longoria
Hochevar
Brignac
Butler

with the largest gap being between Brignac and Butler. Butler is, IMO, far and away the prospect who has the biggest potential for being a Brad Komminsk-style bust.

-- MWE

BA also projects starting lineups for 2010 as part of these reviews. The projection for the Orioles includes Brandon Snyder at 1B, and Tejada still at SS. I feel relatively safe in predicting that neither of those will happen.

Mike: a little late to the party here, but how did you feel about Boston's 2010 lineup featuring Manny Ramirez still patrolling left field? Sounds eminently realistic to me.

Against my better instincts, I'm going to dredge up the Lancaster conversation. Based on personal experience, anecdote, and common sense, my opinion is that sentencing a promising pitcher to a term of one year in an extreme offensive park is a pretty lousy idea. If the pitcher in question is the next Pedro Martinez, then perhaps not, but I doubt any farm directors are sincerely expecting to develop a once-in-a-generation talent. Similarly, I doubt the Red Sox believe they have anything approaching that kind of ceiling in Buchholz or Bowden. So why assign your top pitching prospects to an environment where they are likely to struggle? Player development in baseball isn't about eliminating the chaff from your system, it's about trying to turn the chaff into something useful.

To the extent that I've been exposed to behavioral studies on learning, the consensus seems to be that human beings (as which pitchers are loosely classified) learn more effectively by positive reinforcement than negative. Getting knocked around and laboring through long innings day in and day out does little to help a young pitcher learn to pitch, particularly if he's actually executing well. As a hypothetical example, let's say Buchholz arrives in Lancaster next spring and his curveball starts getting crushed. Maybe he's got the evolutionary Koufax deuce and will dominate, park factors be damned, but let's presume he's mortal and is getting cuffed around a bit. Working from the assumption that Lancaster's park influence will get the better of him more than a few times, there are a few scenarios to work through:

1. There's nothing wrong with Buchholz's curve, and it's simply the nutty park at work. The coach staff reassures him that his curveball is great, don't worry about all the gopher balls. Buchholz continues to pitch the same way and logs a greater number of pitches per inning (or per out), putting additional stress on his young arm over the course of the season. On the plus side, he earns a few tough-sounding superlatives like "bulldog" and "battler" from the handful of people who are even paying attention. What has this done for his raw ability to get major league hitters out?

2. There is something wrong with Buchholz's curve, and the coaching staff helps him make some adjustments. Buchholz realizes improvement instantly, as the hits he's giving up are now merely frozen ropes into the power alleys or perhaps landing just a few rows behind the outfield wall instead of leaving the stadium entirely. What does this teach a young pitcher about making adjustments? What does this do to the level of trust he has in his coaches?

3. There is something wrong with Buchholz's curve, and the coaching staff helps him make some adjustments. Buchholz realizes non-sarcastic improvement instantly and turns in a very respectable season. After being promoted to AA, however, he finds that the adjustments he had to make at Lancaster in order to regain effective movement on his breaking pitch have left him (choose one or more of the following):
(a) prone to throwing his curve in the dirt
(b) unable to throw his curve for strikes as consistently
(c) a little bit sore in his elbow after games
(d) insert Chicken Little event of your choice
Buchholz now has to make further adjustments to modify or reverse what he "learned" at Lancaster. Assuming these are successful, has he accomplished anything?

It seems to me that if an organization's developmental philosophy includes challenging its best pitching prospects, its healthier to do that via aggressive promotion and exposing them to genuinely better competition rather than thrusting them into some circus of a park to face artificially inflated competition. That doesn't teach your stud prospects squat about getting good hitters out; at best, it only teaches them how to get unpolished hitters out in a freakish environment or how to cope with an inordinate frequency of failure. On the flip side of the coin, I don't see a tremendous amount of value for the organization either. If a pitcher is considered "ready" for Lancaster, why wouldn't he also be considered "ready" for AA? Opting to put the pitcher at Lancaster strikes me as shouldering more risk just to produce the same data point at the end of the day. A good farm director, in my view, should pursue a strategy of having the best prospects play against their peers in as neutral an environment as is feasible. Let the filler play in the bizarro parks.

Nice bit of writing, Mattbert. The Red Sox could do almost anything with Manny, so I don't feel comofrtable in predicting *anything* relating to him, other than that there will be a lot of offseason stories about what to do with him :)

If a pitcher is considered "ready" for Lancaster, why wouldn't he also be considered "ready" for AA? Opting to put the pitcher at Lancaster strikes me as shouldering more risk just to produce the same data point at the end of the day. A good farm director, in my view, should pursue a strategy of having the best prospects play against their peers in as neutral an environment as is feasible. Let the filler play in the bizarro parks.

I don't think it's any accident that High Desert can't get an affiliate to stay for more than two years. I don't think it's any accident that Lancaster and HD were the last high-A teams to get an affiliation this year.

This, to me, speaks volumes about why affiliated baseball isn't always the best thing for the minors. Boston's caught between a rock and a hard place. Their goal is player development; if a pitcher on whom they are relying to develop has that development process retarding by playing in Lancaster, they aren't going to want to send him there. On the other hand, the JetHawk owners, media, and fans want to see the Buchholzes and Bowdens and the other top prospects there; with no local marketing connection a la Boston/Pawtucket or LA/Inland Empire to trumpet, they don't WANT to be bypassed, and they aren't going to be too happy with Boston if they are bypassed.

It's a gamble for the Red Sox; how far do they go to keep the affiliate happy while protecting their own interests. There is no question that, if push comes to shove, the JetHawks will be thrown over the side.

-- MWE

Twins are up. Here is another take on Minnesota's top 10.

There's little disagreement that Garza's #1, there's a great deal of disagreement below that. Parmelee, Perkins, and Slowey are in a knot (I'm actually more sold on Parmelee than on either of the other two), then when you get down toward the bottom of the top 10, you have guys like the 7-10 on the BA ist, plus guys like Smit, Morlan, Manship, Robbins - all of whom I think are basically interchangeable at this stage of their career, in terms of their prospect status. The only real quibble, at this stage for me, is Benson. I think he's talented, but #8 seems to me to be way too high.

Minnesota has as many guys who *could* have good careers as almost anyone - BA's top 10 plus the four guys I just named.

-- MWE

Oh yeah:

I read an interview with Benson's HS coach, who compared him to Kirby Puckett and Aaron Rowand.

-- MWE

Oh yeah #2:

Scout.com has a list of the Twins' top 50 (don't know how much of this is accessible to non-subscribers). They put Casilla #3, Morlan #5, Parmelee #7, and Benson all the way down at #26.

There's also this about Trevor Plouffe:

Plouffe has another mediocre season in 2006, and some within the organization are beginning to question whether or not he is the shortstop of the future. I for one believe he has a very bright future, though I do believe a jump to Double-A in 2007 could be damaging to his development. The young SS batted only .245 for the Miracle in 2006.

Can we just be honest with ourselves? The Yankees farm system is better than the Angels system, as they both are currently situated.

Angels, by the way, are up.

The Yankees farm system is better than the Angels system, as they both are currently situated.

I think the Angels' farm system is overrated, largely because people (a) fail to fathom exactly how good the hitting environments have been and (b) don't look at the whole picture of the prospect as a result. It's good, not great.

-- MWE

Agreed. But I was still surprised to see an 18-year old Korean pitcher who even BA describes as "lacking significant projection" and who hasn't pitched in a game yet at the #4 slot.

I was still surprised to see an 18-year old Korean pitcher who even BA describes as "lacking significant projection" and who hasn't pitched in a game yet at the #4 slot.

Alan Matthews (from the chat) describes his choice this way:

It would have been "safer" to slide him in the back of the 10 and wait to see how he performed in his debut, but my objective is to list the top 10 players in the system, in order of impact potential with likelihood of reaching that potential, and I believe Jung is a workhorse No. 2 or 3 starter, and that profile justified his ranking.

Matthews had the advantage of seeing him pitch in instructional league, liked his fastball and his already well-developed secondary offerings, and, well, you see the rest.

After Wood and Adenhart, the quality falls off quickly, IMO. I'm not at all sold on Aybar. Conger has as good an argument to be #3 as anyone else on the list, and he's all projection at this point.

-- MWE

Were I an Angels fan I'd be scared about Wood ending up a huge bust. I know he has as much potential as anyone, but that contact rate scares me. Maybe I'm just looking for negatives on him, but that along with playing in extreme run environments really make me doubt he's going to be an impact player.

Oakland is up.

I'm surprised to see Mitchell so high, especially ahead of Hererra. Hererra missed all of 2006 with TJ surgery, but he's still younger and has had success at a higher level tham Mitchell--though they both seem like similar prospects.

The bottom half of the list is pretty depressing, as is their projection of Saarloos as the 4th starter in 2010.

I'm not too worries about Wood's strikeouts. He's learning to walk, and if he stays at shorstop, his secondary skills will mean he should still be a contributor even if he's hitting .240, which I think he should be able to do at the major league level.

The flip-side of the Angel system being "overrated" due to the hitting environments overrating the hitters is that the pitchers are underrated. Adenhart is the class of the joint, but Steven Marek and even Steve Shell (who struggled at AAA last year, but was only 23 and always struggles at his first exposure to a new level) have some potential, as do young guys like Gustavo Espinoza (who didn't pitch this year, but is playing in winter ball), Tommy Mendoza, and Jose Arredondo, who will be making the move to the pen. Then you have really young guys like Trevor Bell and Sean O'Sullivan, and even Rafael Rodriguez.

Obviously, attrition is the big thing with young pitchers, but they have a few guys lined up and will hopefully be able to get one top-notch starter and a solid reliever out of the group.

This whole list should be pretty depressing to Oakland fans, actually. There is no one on this list with significant upside.

-- MWE

One "problem" with the Angel farm system is that the first wave has pretty much all made the majors, but the jury's still out on all of them. Kotchman and McPherson have had health issues, Kendrick has only just come up, Weaver and Santana don't really have track records (though obviously Santana is much further along in terms of establishing himself in the majors). Kind of the same deal with Mathis and Napoli.

We're at least a couple of years away from really being able to judge that group. I think Mathis projects to a league-average catcher at his peak, Napoli is pretty much what we've seen, Kotchman is a real player if he can keep out the viruses, McPherson is at worst a decent platoon player with a bad back, Weaver and Santana are top-of-the-rotation material, and Kendrick is the next MVP to wear an Angel uniform.

Oh, and Kendry Morales, who I think is going to be Brad Fullmer without the platoon split.

I still love Wood's potential - if he sticks at SS. I have a particular bias towards unique players, and Wood does have a pretty unusual profile. He and Gordon are still the top 2 jewels, IMO.

This whole list should be pretty depressing to Oakland fans, actually. There is no one on this list with significant upside.

Oh, believe me, I have been depressed about the farm system for some time.

Oh, believe me, I have been depressed about the farm system for some time.

What do A's fans seem to think are the root causes of the A's "depressing" farm?

Butler is, IMO, far and away the prospect who has the biggest potential for being a Brad Komminsk-style bust.

What's wrong with Butler besides defense? He was only 20 last year and put up .331/.388/.499 in AA.