Community Prospect #16

Ryan Braun, Carlos Gonzalez and Lincecum

Are the best 3 left. I went with Braun, but it's close. And should Elbert join the poll sometime soon?

by playingwithfire on Oct 30, 2006 8:58 AM EST reply actions

Tabata

I don't think he should be on there unless Fernado Martinez is on there with him. IMO Martinez is a little better, but they are about the same level prospect and should be on there together.

Secondly, Why has Pelfrey slid so far from last year. He has developed a slider now and has got rid of his curve. The slider has said to be a potential plus pitch for him. He also has worked hard on his chnage up. Is it his age? (idk why that would be it) Is it the lack if secondary stuff? He still has the best fastball on this list. And we all know you can't teach a fastball

by JD Sussman on Oct 30, 2006 9:07 AM EST reply actions

Tabata

because he's consistently polled better than Martinez, and I only had room to add one of them.

BTW, as with the last 3 or 4 polls, I wenbt with McCutchen.

by Brickhaus on Oct 30, 2006 10:48 AM EST up reply actions

at the moment

Tabata's stock is quite a bit higher than Martinez's: Jose's doing very well in Venezuela, while Fernando's sucked in the AFL. It's just a snapshot, but it matters for today's polling.

by Azteca on Oct 30, 2006 2:06 PM EST up reply actions

hmm

Correct me if i'm wrong but the players in the AFL are 5 years older than Martinez. Tabata is batting .238 with no extra basehits. Thats doing very well? Fernando is batting .198 after starting out 0-18. Yet he has 2 HRs. With all this nonsense aside. You are going to base two players stock on a combined 71 ABs? Honestly I don't think that makes any sense.

by JD Sussman on Oct 30, 2006 2:16 PM EST up reply actions

recheck your stats

Tabata had a big weekend.

by Azteca on Oct 30, 2006 2:20 PM EST up reply actions

geeez

Are people really letting their opinions of players shift after "big weekends"...

Bobby Crosby - a poor man's Adam Everett.

by natsfan2005 @ Minor League Ball on Oct 30, 2006 3:36 PM EST up reply actions

no

i was using the most recent numbers to differentiate between two relatively unknown players. How do you slot a couple of teenagers into a group of 21-23 year olds on the verge of making an impact?

by Azteca on Oct 30, 2006 3:54 PM EST up reply actions

Tabata

Tabata's OPS is over 1000 in the VWL.

.360/.515/.520 with 8BB/4K and 1 HR in 25 AB's. Small sample size, but it's obvious that he's doing well so far.

You're probably looking at the minorleaguebaseball.com stats for Venezuela, which are outdated.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Oct 30, 2006 2:36 PM EST up reply actions

yea i was

Sorry... But even so my point is that it is a small sample size and that really means close to nothing. Would you agree that the AFL is a stronger league thn VWL?

by JD Sussman on Oct 30, 2006 3:25 PM EST up reply actions

no

by bmxstreetrider86 on Oct 30, 2006 6:05 PM EST up reply actions

to clarify my answer

The AFL is loaded with good prospects, but the VWL has much more advanced players from all over the world, former and current major league players, and high minors (AA/AAA) players.

its like tabata is playing in AA/AAA rite now and martinez is in A+ if thats they reason why you were wondering

by bmxstreetrider86 on Oct 30, 2006 6:12 PM EST up reply actions

AFL != High A

AFL is heavily composed of the best AA players with AAA players mixed in. I don't see where you're getting A+.

I know the VWL does have some former and current mlbers. But I think it probably has some real stiffs too. My intuition is that the VWL has more seasoned talent and more lousy talent. Basically an uneven league with a large standard deviation of in the quality of players.

Bobby Crosby - a poor man's Adam Everett.

by natsfan2005 @ Minor League Ball on Oct 30, 2006 6:22 PM EST up reply actions

that

would be the point. the VWL is full of much more seasoned and polished players

the AFL is a developmental league. players are working on things more than they are going there to play, unlike the VWL.

its not necessarily about talent- there is probably more talent in Low A and high A than there is in AAA (usually) but there are better baseball PLAYERS in AAA, guys who have been around and have Major league talent

the AFL is a better league for prospects, the VWL is a tougher place for an 18 year old to play than the AFL

by bmxstreetrider86 on Oct 30, 2006 6:31 PM EST up reply actions

VWL

Here are the top 50 VWL players in ABs. I don't see how the presence of a handful of MLB utility infielders or backup catchers makes this a better league than the AFL... and besides... even if he was playing cyborg robots I'm not going to change my opinion of a kid after 25 ABs. His stat line looked drastically different just 5 ABs ago for pete's sake...

GONZALEZ LUIS
WALKER CHRIS
SPAN DENARD
BERGOLLA WILLIAM
RIOS EDUARDO
ACU¥A RONALD
MAZA LUIS
BOLIVAR LUIS
HARRISON BEN
VELANDIA JORGE
CASTRO RAMON
DIAZ FRANK
PEREZ ROBERT
SALAZAR RUBEN
CALLASPO ALBERTO
DAVIS RAJAI
SANDOVAL DANNY
JONES GARRETT
MONTERO MIGUEL
ROMERO ALEXANDER
ALVAREZ RAFAEL
BUTTLER VIC
GONZALEZ ALBERTO
ESPINOSA DAVID
GONZALEZ CARLOS
RAVEN LUIS
DE CASTER YURENDELL
LANGAIGNE SELWYN
SWEENEY RYAN
COLINA JAVIER
FOSTER QUINCY
KROEGER JOSH
SOJO LUIS
COATS BUCK
MCDONALD DARNELL
PAZ RICHARD
GOLD NATE
OLMEDO RAINER
NAVARRO DIONER
BLANCO GREGOR
CONNELL LINO
ESCALONA FELIX
HIDALGO RICHARD
JIMENEZ LUIS
BLANCO HENRY
CABRERA ASDRUBAL
FREIRE ALEJANDRO
SALAZAR OSCAR
MENDEZ CARLOS
CORTES JORGE

Bobby Crosby - a poor man's Adam Everett.

by natsfan2005 @ Minor League Ball on Oct 31, 2006 9:51 AM EST up reply actions

look

rite now at the begining of the season when some of the Major leaguers are just getting there is great, but look at the pitchers who are playing there, like Kelvim escobar and carlos Zambrano( though he is on tabatas team) there are much better players and pitchers in the VWL.

the AFL is simply a developmental league, players are working on things so you should take all of the stats with a grain of salt

by bmxstreetrider86 on Oct 31, 2006 4:56 PM EST up reply actions

BA update on Martinez

* Mets outfielder Fernando Martinez is getting rave reviews for his overall approach at the plate that includes plus power to all fields, especially to the opposite field. Martinez, who turned 18 on the AFL's Opening Day, is hitting just .196 in 51 at-bats for Mesa. But that doesn't mean scouts aren't gushing over the young outfielder.

"His approach is so advanced for his age and the ball just jumps off his bat," a scout from an AL club said. "The only negative you see is he's a little late in his jumps and reads in center field. He's not as explosive as you'd think he would be."

by joltin joe dimaggio on Oct 30, 2006 6:29 PM EST up reply actions

Went Cutch here...

although it was a toss up between Gonzo and Cutch, and decided to give Cutch the nod for doing well in AA at 19.

I know my issue with Pelfrey is that for all the hyhpe I hear about his stuff, and all that jazz, he hasn't dominated anywhere yet. I like several pitchers ahead of Pelfrey including all the guys on this list.

by beastball on Oct 30, 2006 9:36 AM EST reply actions

Its true

That he hasn't dominated. But, although you'd have know way of knowing this, he works primaryly on his secondary stuff when he pitches. I'm sure most minor league pitchers do that, but because of his fastball he doesn't dominate when he doesn't throw it consistantly.

by JD Sussman on Oct 30, 2006 9:41 AM EST up reply actions

Well...

just in my experience, teams normally pull a dominant pitch if the pitcher is overly favoring it because he is dominating the competition with it. I wouldn't understand why you'd handicap a pitcher before he's proven he can dominate the competition with his best stuff. Why take away Pelfrey's best pitch before you know he can dominate with it?

And I know Galladro doesn't get any respect, and I figure it's because of his average fastball, but he clearly dominated at every level unmatched by anyone else in the minors, and he's a few years younger than Pelfrey. For those reasons alone, I have to go with Gallardo over Pelfrey.

by beastball on Oct 30, 2006 9:47 AM EST up reply actions

Pelfrey

You said he hasn't dominate anywhere yet, but a 2.43 overall ERA between 3 levels with the majority of them in AA speaks dominant to me. Also 109K's in 96.1 inning is a great ratio and remember that according to BA he has the best fastball and fastball command in the minors.

by LCT on Oct 30, 2006 10:02 AM EST up reply actions

Just my opinion...

But his numbers in AA weren't dominant. They were solid, good, but not dominant. His numbers are nothing like Adam Miller's or Gallardo's in AA.

And I do hear he's got great stuff, but I'm waiting for him to translate the great stuff to great results.

by beastball on Oct 30, 2006 10:53 AM EST up reply actions

Oh yeah...

I was checking the minor league tools, and didn't see him listed anywhere, High-A or AA. Pelfrey was in the Eastern League, and Lindstrom was ranked with the best fastball, and Garza with the best control.

I doubt they ranked his fastball best in the minors, when they didn't even rank it highest in his league.

by beastball on Oct 30, 2006 11:03 AM EST up reply actions

Could that be because...

Pelfrey was promoted in July and Lindstrom had only spend 1 month in the minors since being drafted in June???

Pelfrey 6'7 210 22 years of age

Lincecum 5'11 160 22 years of age

Pelfrey throws his fastball at 98 mph with consistency, something Adam Miller can't do anymore and Gallardo dreams about. Lindstrom's fastball does max out at 100-101 mph but he's not anywhere near as polished and major league ready as Pelfrey. Also, Lincecum putting that type of stress on his arm at 5'11 160 could spell big time troubles if he continues to start. Meanwhile, Pelfrey stands With as many college pitchers that have flamed out after being drafted, he may never be. Had Pelfrey been in the minors for most the season he would have dominated in my opinion but instead, was privy to MLB hitters and performed comparably to Garza in limited action before he was injured.

by Havok1517 on Oct 30, 2006 11:37 AM EST up reply actions

Pelfrey stands

at 6'1 210 and has a better build to dela with the stress his fastball will put on him arm. Of course this logic doesn't always work but everything is a guessing game at this point.

by Havok1517 on Oct 30, 2006 11:41 AM EST up reply actions

6'7

not 6'1

by Havok1517 on Oct 30, 2006 11:41 AM EST up reply actions

Not arguing whose fastball is better...

but just questioning his assertion that BA ranked Pelfery's fastball as the best in the minors and his fastball command as the best. And not saying it's not true, just saying I can't find it on their site.

by beastball on Oct 30, 2006 11:51 AM EST up reply actions

Don't think I can vote

I'm still in shock that people voted Dukes as the 15th best prospect in baseball. He has had solid production, but there are WAY too many question marks about him to put him that high.

We missed the mark on that one.

by eazyb81 on Oct 30, 2006 11:47 AM EST reply actions

I kinda agree...

the problem is that the weakness in Dukes is so subjective, it's not something that can easily be argued over, like numbers can. I mean a 22 year old who hits 300 with a 400 OBA and 500 SLG in AAA is a top 20 prospect, we can agree with that, right?

The whole problem revolves around his attitude, and that's an issue that's complete speculation. If you think its a huge thing, then he's a non-prospect. If you think he's gotten over it, then he's a top 20 guy, if we agree to the point I'd made before.

by beastball on Oct 30, 2006 12:51 PM EST up reply actions

Said it before

And I'll say it again... Carlos Gonzalez is overrated.

End of rant.

Tabata deserves to be ranked higher than Gonzalez as well as Longoria who is the same age and plays a premium position.

This site sure loves the toolsy OF's... about time infield prospects and pitchers got some love as well. Unless you're playing CF, you're not that high on the defensive spectrum and that should be shown in a prospect list.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Oct 30, 2006 12:25 PM EST reply actions

still can't get over it

Not a single scouting director or GM on the planet would take Dukes over anyone listed on this poll.

Farce.

by Galt on Oct 30, 2006 4:51 PM EST reply actions

agreed

He hasnt even made it to the bigs, or become a well known player and hes already gone nutso.

I swear Josh Hamilton must have forgotten he spiked some drinks at the D-Rays facility with crack a few years back and now everyone else down there has gotten hold of it.

by wildthang on Oct 30, 2006 5:44 PM EST up reply actions

media

with the way the media is today... It wouldn't surprise me if they just to provoke Dukes to lose it. News is such big business these days that the media isn't content to solely report what happens. Sometimes they'll try to create it...

This provocation can sometimes be as simple as asking the same question 5 times in a row in a slightly different manner just to try to break the player... Dukes temper will get tested in a major way.

Bobby Crosby - a poor man's Adam Everett.

by natsfan2005 @ Minor League Ball on Oct 30, 2006 5:49 PM EST up reply actions

Just curious...

but what makes you say that? Do you know someone who works for the D'Rays? Serious question, cause I'd like to see Dukes be given a shot somewhere, and would like to know what the DRays have planned, are they going to give him a shot at 1b? Are they trying to trade him?

But the Dukes hatin is really interesting.

by beastball on Oct 30, 2006 5:56 PM EST up reply actions

Dukes - Question

How many complete @ssholes have had successful or HOF careers? We all know the answer to that one, too many.

But how many similar guys with great talent and almost no holes in their game, combined with solid work ethic, have been blacklisted out of baseball? I'm sure their have been some but can't really think of any.

That is why I think it's a total non-issue with Dukes.

Am I missing something? I know he's been a total jerk. He might get better and is trying. But might not. But I think that will only affect # of teams he's with not the results.

by pedrophile on Oct 30, 2006 7:00 PM EST reply actions

what i'd like to hear

from dukes detractors - and i don't think they're totally off base, there is substantial risk with him - but i want to know what, exactly, you think is likely to happen. is it just that he'll be constantly suspended? no one will want to employ him at all? i'm not sure how people see this playing out.

can we point to any players with a similar personality and see how their career went? i can't think of a perfect comp for him, honestly.

bradley is probably the closest, and he's still playing. he's bounced around and hasn't totally met expectations, but in the last couple of years that's been more due to injuries than attitude, and he seems to have settled into oakland pretty well.

i don't see his issues as similar to sheffield's; sheffield's have always been a lot milder, in my opinion. sheff doesn't really have a self-control problem, he's just kind of an outspokenly selfish dick. that's different.

if people are thinking he's a maurice clarett type, i think that's way off too. i don't know a lot about clarett but my impression is that in the end he couldn't be bothered to give a fuck about his sports career. i don't think that's the case with dukes at all. he works hard; he's not into drugs; he just gets angry way too easily.

by wily mo on Oct 30, 2006 7:17 PM EST up reply actions

ill try

and answer that:

i feel that if you are going to be a top 100 prospect, you need to not only poses good tools+production, but you need long term value. dukes inability to keep himself in check(and on the field) hinders that long term value. if you could look into the future and see the problems bradley has had would you put him in the top 100? i wouldnt. now this while thing could blow over and he could be a model citizen from now on, but rite now his track record shows a history of different problems. you can project tools going forward, but projecting the behavior of a human being going forward is something that statistics cant do.

by bmxstreetrider86 on Oct 30, 2006 7:32 PM EST up reply actions

22?

If you woulda judged me at 22, eh, I woulda been too drunk to care. I do agree that emotional maturity can have a positive or negative impact, but most people do mature. If he still has this going on at 26, it's a bigger, more substantial issue. At 22, yeah, I had maturity issues. Heck, I would think it odder that a 22 yo didn't have issues.

As far as skills, talent, etc., I can think of two solid comps: Dick Allen and Curt Flood. Both were incredibly gifted athletes with a huge temper. But they were also more than a bit brighter than the average major leaguer of that time, and I wonder if that had anything to do with how they were perceived.

Now, where's my beer?

by bigfatdrunk on Oct 30, 2006 7:48 PM EST up reply actions

he

isnt a drunk, he has anger management problems- he is also a profesional baseball player and makeup is a big part- there of plenty of 22 year olds not having the type of issues dukes is having.

my point is that you cant just assume they will go away when they have been such a prevalent issues with him up to now

by bmxstreetrider86 on Oct 30, 2006 7:52 PM EST up reply actions

Still not into it

I'm sure there's a comp somewhere, but Dukes' situation is weird. He's not an ornery guy, nice around kids, jokester in the clubhouse. He just has a hair trigger temper, and he turns into Mr. Hyde when it's set off. Ron Artest might be a good comp, but of course he's not a baseball player...

by Brickhaus on Oct 30, 2006 9:07 PM EST up reply actions

bradley

see, i think bradley would absolutely be in a hindsight top 100. say what you want about the guy, he's been a legitimate major league hitter who's justifiably held down starting jobs. there aren't 100 guys like that in the minors at any one time. his attitude problems knock him down, sure, but no matter how annoying he is there's absolutely no reason to choose a complete bust or 4th outfielder over him.

the other guy i forgot to include as a comp is carl everett. and he too has had a productive, if well-traveled, career, the nature and duration of which in the end was determined by his playing ability more than his attitude.

and you didn't really answer the question. what, specifically, do you think will most likely happen to dukes? will he be suspended for life? suspended every other week? blacklisted?

by wily mo on Oct 30, 2006 7:52 PM EST up reply actions

just to illustrate the point

and not to beat it to death, but i got curious - i went back to the 2000 BA top 100 and reordered it (very roughly) according to how the guys actually turned out. here's what i came up with (only listing guys who panned out at all):

Alfonso Soriano, ss, Yankees
Lance Berkman, of, Astros
Vernon Wells, of, Blue Jays
Ben Sheets, rhp, Brewers
Jimmy Rollins, ss, Phillies
Rafael Furcal, ss, Braves
Barry Zito, lhp, Athletics
C.C. Sabathia, lhp, Indians
Adam Dunn, of, Reds
Eric Gagne, rhp, Dodgers
Josh Beckett, rhp, Marlins
A.J. Burnett, rhp, Marlins
Carlos Guillen, 3b, Mariners
Mark Mulder, lhp, Athletics
Marcus Giles, 2b, Braves
Nick Johnson, 1b, Yankees
Joe Crede, 3b, White Sox
Felipe Lopez, ss, Blue Jays
Michael Cuddyer, 3b, Twins
John Patterson, rhp, Diamondbacks
Brad Penny, rhp, Marlins
Jason Jennings, rhp, Rockies
Aubrey Huff, 3b, Devil Rays
Milton Bradley, of, Expos
Corey Patterson, of, Cubs
Wily Mo Pena, of, Yankees
Wilson Betemit, ss, Braves
Pat Burrell, 1b/of, Phillies
Francisco Cordero, rhp, Rangers
Wade Miller, rhp, Astros
Jon Garland, rhp, White Sox
Adam Eaton, rhp, Padres
Danys Baez, rhp, Indians
Adam Everett, ss, Astros
Cesar Izturis, ss, Blue Jays
Byung-Hyun Kim, rhp, Diamondbacks
Kip Wells, rhp, White Sox
Ramon Ortiz, rhp, Angels
D'Angelo Jimenez, ss, Yankees
Sun Woo Kim, rhp, Red Sox
Tony Armas, rhp, Expos
Luis Rivas, 2b, Twins
Mike Lamb, 3b, Rangers
Russ Branyan, 3b, Indians
Matthew LeCroy, c, Twins

i think that placement of bradley is quite fair; and it puts him at #24, so not only is he still on the list, he's actually moved up 12 slots.

by wily mo on Oct 30, 2006 10:40 PM EST up reply actions

heh

they really nailed lecroy, though. he's #44, i have him at 45.

by wily mo on Oct 31, 2006 1:18 AM EST up reply actions

Dukes

Dukes problems are ALREADY keeping him off the field. I agree, kids at 22 do have problems - but that isn't an excuse. Dukes has had problems - and they keep surfacing. Most other players that have had problems staying on the field haven't worked out - Jeff Allison and Josh Hamilton come to mind. Both were immensely talented, as is Dukes. What part of Durham would rather change affiliation than field Dukes in 2007 do people not understand? That is not a minor assertion, to me it speaks volumes of just how big of a problem Dukes is.

Like I've said before, I like Dukes. I think he's really a great player and hope he overcomes all of this and pans out. But to put him at 15 really knocks the quality/credibility of this list down IMO. His problems worry me more that any K/BB concerns, lack of power, lack of stuff/command or any other knock prospects are tagged with.

by slurve on Oct 30, 2006 8:06 PM EST reply actions

Forgot

One other thing I wanted to ask? Why does everyone assume that Dukes problems will go away/won't matter in the bigs? To me, it's like saying Felix Pie's K/BB won't matter once he's called up. Aint gonna happen. Unless he learns how to correct it, he won't be a good player. Same goes for Dukes in my book.

by slurve on Oct 30, 2006 8:10 PM EST up reply actions

uh...

allison and hamilton were both DRUG ADDICTS. that's a very specific thing which simply doesn't apply to dukes.

as far as durham goes, it's a sign of problems, sure, but it seems as though maybe the staff down there weren't the best handlers-of-young-players in the history of the world themselves, given all that went on.

my personal best guess is that dukes will have a career like bradley and everett - something of a gypsy, changing orgs every couple of years, but playing. whoever said that no major league GM would take him over anyone else currently on the poll is therefore quite correct. but on the other hand, his minor league track record is, i think, even better than either of those guys - more power than bradley, better K/BB than everett. given all that, i think his placement on this list is quite justifiable, as a reflection of his value as a player, which is slightly different from his value to any one particular major league organization - his career value, vs. his trade value.

by wily mo on Oct 30, 2006 8:15 PM EST up reply actions

Drug problems/assholes

Both are behavior disorders. Both problems keep players off the field. I'd say treating a drug problem is easier than treating and asshole-aholic. Assholes seldom change.

by slurve on Oct 30, 2006 8:20 PM EST up reply actions

well

history says different. or - more specifically, maybe an asshole is always an asshole, but you can be an asshole and still play. bradley and everett have had careers. allison and hamilton have not.

by wily mo on Oct 30, 2006 8:23 PM EST up reply actions

Don't remeber

Bradley or Everitt having these issues, let alone to this degree when they were coming up. I know you can be a complete jag and still play. Bonds/Cobb/Kingman and so on. I just think the degree of Elijah's problems and what people still expect despite them is unprecedented and is absolutely ridiculous IMO. They are certaily big enough to not have him even sniffing the top 30 to me.

by slurve on Oct 30, 2006 8:30 PM EST up reply actions

woahhh

Drugs Abuse and being a Dickhead are two entirely differnt things. We all love to argue but come on. Some players have played on Drugs, Darrell and Doc come to mind. But the issues with Drugs are such more intense then being a headcase and we all know it.

by JD Sussman on Oct 30, 2006 8:34 PM EST up reply actions

Are they?

I know recovered drug addicts. I also know some assholes. I'd take a recovered drug addict on my team before an asshole 10 times out of 10 all other things being the same.

I wasn't comparing the problems or equating them to as the same, at least in the way you are taking it.

Players on drugs - caused people to miss games/get suspended.
Elijah's attitude - caused him to miss games/get suspended.

On that level, they are equal.

by slurve on Oct 30, 2006 8:43 PM EST up reply actions

drughole vs. ass addict

ok, but the question isn't which guy you'd rather hang out with. and what about the non-recovered drug addicts?

you haven't really answered my question, either. what, specifically, do you think is the most likely scenario for how dukes' career plays out? banned from the game? quits in disgust?

that last actually seems like the most likely major negative outcome to me, given that he was already talking about it this offseason. but it would involve him walking away from millions of dollars in career earnings. i'd be surprised if he could resurrect his football career at this point. so i don't really see it happening.

i don't doubt that he'll miss games to suspension in his career, but that alone doesn't cause his value to drop to zero, or really anywhere close. my gut feeling is, as long as a guy can play like he can, he'll get chances.

bradley and everett had their issues. bradley was suspended for spitting gum at umpires at AA, etc. everett was kicked out of winter ball for going into the stands after some fans. as consistently problematic as dukes? probably not really. but comparable, enough to see a pattern in how these things tend to go. maybe differences in how they were handled played a role.

what's an example of someone who's had star talent but in the end amounted to nothing simply because he was an asshole? i can't think of one. of course, perhaps our elijah is unique. i don't know.

by wily mo on Oct 30, 2006 8:59 PM EST up reply actions

Let's not

twist my comments into something they are not.

"ok, but the question isn't which guy you'd rather hang out with. and what about the non-recovered drug addicts?"

Never once did I say or even insinuate "hang-out." I said "on my team." I also said "recovered" - I don't want someone on my team who can't show an ability to overcome their problem. Of course drug addicts will you they are never "recovered" but have to battle to stay sober daily. Same goes for someone like Dukes. If he can show a willingness to change - not like in the BA feel-good article, but a genuine willingness to man-up, seek help and do it for the right reasons, I'd be a lot warmer towards him. So far, it's always someone else fault.

I didn't answer the question of what will happen to Dukes - because I have no idea. That's the entire problem - he's too much of an uncertainty - especially to be ranking at #15.

I was not aware of Bradley's/Everitt's problems in the minors. I don't think they were as bad/frequent as Elijah's. I could be wrong here... That said, Carl Everitt is a fuggin' whack job. You ever hear his theory of the universe or whatever the hell he calls it? Oof.

I agree - Durham probably isn't the best at handling these kids, but at the same time, what does it say about Dukes when they would put up with some of the other stuff and not him?

I don't have any examples off the top of my head of someone failing and flaming out due to just being an asshole - but if there ever was one, Elijah may prove to be it.

by slurve on Oct 30, 2006 9:19 PM EST up reply actions

ok

but i'm saying, everyone keeps on talking about how dangerous his anger is... but nobody ever explains exactly how his anger is going to translate into his not having any value. maybe he overcomes the problem, maybe he doesn't, but i'm saying, the best examples we have indicate that he could not overcome the problem and still have a substantially productive career. quite likely not all with the same organization. whether that makes a difference in how you value him varies depending on what you're trying to measure - his value to the d-rays, or his career WARP, or what - the answer is different depending on the question you're asking.

it does introduce a lot of uncertainty, and i'm not saying you're incorrect for holding the opinion that he should be lower on the list. i share it myself, to a degree; i think i'd put him in the 20s someplace. but i don't think this outcome somehow "invalidates the list". i think there are plausible arguments to be made that this is a good placement, or even that he should be higher. most real-life sources, like BA or real GMs, will probably run him down, because they're thinking of whether they'd want to own him right now, and they're correct not to really want to, because they'd have to deal with managing him as a person, and his commodity value is reduced by the fact that he may burn bridges on a regular basis. but if you're projecting his career value on the field, i think the answer is different.

by wily mo on Oct 30, 2006 9:28 PM EST up reply actions

That's because

It's very hard to quantify. You can't hang a number on it like K/BB and then contrast them to others. This is purely subjective and gut feel. Intuitively, I think Dukes has a tremendous chance of doing a complete crash and burn.

I think Dukes has shown us enough of that problem to be very cautious about projecting him, more so than Brandon Wood's K's. More so than Delmon's make-up. More so than concerns of Billy Butler's defense or the likelyhood of Tabata reaching his potential - which is another subjective notion.

by slurve on Oct 31, 2006 6:49 AM EST up reply actions

First

You just made a huge generalzation about the mindset of Drug Addicts. You are assuming their attuide as if they weren't the headcase, and not taking into account how the drugs themselves affect their minds. I wont deny that Players on Drugs miss games, and so do people with Attitde problems. But thats only in extreme cases. Delmon missed games because he threw a bat. That just doesn't happen everyday. Milton Bradley went on a rampage and missed 4 games i believe. ( in LA) But guys like Sheffield, and Milton dont miss that many games and when it comes down to it, they get it done. How many drug addicts can you name in the MLB right now? I can't think of any because they cant preform on that level, they don't have the heart to play on a team, and they don't have the right priorities for the most part. All these kids need is a mentor to help them change their ways, drug addicts aren't helped as easily. And they relapse as well.

by JD Sussman on Oct 30, 2006 9:01 PM EST up reply actions

Nope

Don't you have Fernando Martinez-homer fight somewhere?

You're lecturing the wrong guy about drug addicts. Nowhere did I make a huge generalization about the mindset of all drug addicts. Everyone is different. I assume nothing about the mental state of someone who has been or is addicted to to drugs. Some have serious mental problems in conjunction with their drug problem. Others are very reasonable/normal people that stepped in a pile.

by slurve on Oct 30, 2006 9:26 PM EST up reply actions

Actully

You made that generaliztion when you said you take an drug addict 10 out of 10 times before an asshole. That is a generlzation about people who don't actully exsit, with problems and personalites that could and will vary.

Secondly, how Fernado Martinez comes up in this is unfathomable. Drugs are a serious issue and you are trying to make this isn't something its not. I do not belive a player in High A should be up this high, be it Maybin or Tabata. Thats the point I was making. But if you are going to have them on there he needs to be next to them IMHO. Yes, there is homerism, but its nothing rediclous by any strech.

by JD Sussman on Oct 30, 2006 9:37 PM EST up reply actions

Just like Wily Mo

You left out the word "recovered." HUGE difference and I stand by my statement.

by slurve on Oct 31, 2006 6:40 AM EST up reply actions

uh

i never left out the word recovered. i just asked you what about the non-recovered drug addicts. it sort of helps out your point if you're allowed to cure the guys in the category you prefer before comparing them to the guys in the other category. which would you rather have, a current drug addict or a chilled-out former asshole?

by wily mo on Oct 31, 2006 1:18 PM EST up reply actions

I guess I don't understand...

why people feel having Dukes at 15 somehow invalidates the list?

I think we can agree that based on numbers and talent that he deserves to be in the top 20, at least. Who could argue with a 22 year old hitting 300 with 400 OBA and 500 SLG in AAA being at least a top 20 prospect? Looking at his 3 year development trend, and I think you could reasonably argue for maybe cracking the top 10. So this isn't like some borderline talent, or performer sneaking his way in. Dukes, on the field, is as legit as it gets and his numbers and tools stands with anyone on the list.

It all boils down to what impact his attitude would have on his career. Personally, I don't really think it's going to be a huge deal for him. Maybe he'll be Bradley, who with some better luck with staying healthy, would be an all-star OF. Maybe he'll be a Belle or an Everett. A tarnished star, but a star nonetheless.

And as I said in another post, why do people think Dukes is being avoided by other GMs? Are the DRays really looking to move him for peanuts? I don't think they are, I think they're hoping he'll iron out his problems and develop into the star they know he can be.

As an Astro fan, I'd kill to get Dukes for some retreads if the DRays want to dump him (and I don't think they are). I'd take the chance that he rights his ship and becomes a power-speed monster, easily.

Being an asshole doesn't destroy your mind and body like being a drug addict does. Not only that but being an asshole might make you miss a few games here and there, but being a drug addict causes you to be suspended for years at a time, assuming you can ever break the habit. Very different scenarios.

by beastball on Oct 30, 2006 9:15 PM EST up reply actions

point

i think that everyone here agrees that without his makeup problems, dukes is top 20

what im mistified about is that his problems didnt knock him down AT ALL- im nots saying he has no place on the list but i think some discression should have been used in voting for him

by bmxstreetrider86 on Oct 30, 2006 9:50 PM EST up reply actions

well, that depends.

personally i do think it knocked him down. on talent alone i'd probably put him right around where butler is.

by wily mo on Oct 30, 2006 9:53 PM EST up reply actions

I don't disagree with that....

and I think Brickhaus mentioned it before. The reason why he might've come a little early is that it only take a tiny minority of voters to push him higher than he probably deserved. It only takes 50 out of 250 voters to put someone in. It's the nature of the beast when simply majority wins with 10 options.

I tend to think Dukes fits somewhere 20-30 given his attitude. But there are as many that think he should've gone top 10 and who think his anger problems are gone as there are those who think he shouldn't be in the top 100 and will spend his career playing prison ball.

by beastball on Oct 30, 2006 10:01 PM EST up reply actions

Hmm

"But there are as many that think he should've gone top 10 and who think his anger problems are gone as there are those who think he shouldn't be in the top 100 and will spend his career playing prison ball."

What genius actually thinks that his anger problems aren't going to crop up again? I'd like to steer clear of those people's opinions.

by Brett Perryman on Oct 30, 2006 10:23 PM EST up reply actions

I figure that genius...

is hanging out with the genius that thinks Dukes is going to end up in jail.

by beastball on Oct 30, 2006 10:36 PM EST up reply actions

attitude problems

Both Barry Bonds and his father had huge chips on their shoulders. Ted Williams wasn't a likeable fellow. Albert Belle was no saint. I think I could go on just with HOFers that were complete pricks, hit players with bats, threw balls at fans, attacked fans, etc.

Dukes has a problem. We all know that. Without it he is top 5 IMO. I don't ever see him being liked - more because of the loner attitude than anything.

ps: notice how we all know that fights do happen between players all the time but the only ones we ever hear about are the Jeff Kents, Bonds, Belle, and other players the media doesn't like? This isn't to defend him, just food for thought.

by pedrophile on Oct 30, 2006 10:40 PM EST up reply actions

Nobody liked...

Ty Cobb...not even himself.

by Havok1517 on Oct 30, 2006 10:44 PM EST up reply actions

yea

but you are talking about hall of fame players- dukes has done NOTHING at the major league level AND has anger management issues. if this guy is a HOF like bonds, sheff, cobb, williams then teams would put up with them. if not then you are milton bradley- a nice player but someone who has never been able to stay somewhere for an extended period of time without wearing out his welcome- is that the kind of career you are looking for from the 15th best prospect in baseball? i no prospects are a crapshoot, but that is putting alot of eggs in a very unstable basket.

anyway, what is the big difference between 15 and 30 anyway? i just think 15 is a little too high for a player who's future is very uncertain

by bmxstreetrider86 on Oct 30, 2006 11:27 PM EST up reply actions

great response

....Dukes went just abit early...

by daveh33 on Oct 31, 2006 1:10 AM EST up reply actions

The guy

has already on a couple of occasions supposedly almost quit baseball because of his problems. Now that may have been a bunch of BS, but between that and lots of suspensions, this goes beyond just being not likable.

by Brett Perryman on Oct 31, 2006 12:01 AM EST up reply actions

Not at all

Everyone here does not agree that he's top 20 w/o the issues. That's what's so astounding about his being at #15. Even if he had a model attitude, I still think he doesnt belong that high. Doesnt invalidate the entire list, but does make you scratch your head. His issues are enough of a concern to knock him down quite a bit. He belongs in the Top 100, but exactly where is hard to say. I doubt if BA ranks him any higher than around the middle of the list.

by rhd on Oct 31, 2006 1:51 AM EST up reply actions

ok

can you explain your reasoning for not seeing him as top 20 even with the most modern psychology?

by wily mo on Oct 31, 2006 2:11 AM EST up reply actions

I had the same question...

I don't know of any statisical or physical tool reason to justify not having him in the top 20, at least.

by beastball on Oct 31, 2006 9:20 AM EST up reply actions

I agree

If he didn't have his issues, he would be a top 15 guy. But, as Paul Harvey would say - you need to hear the "rest of the story."

by slurve on Oct 31, 2006 10:28 AM EST up reply actions

knocks the quality/credibility of this list down

Should we all start looking for new jobs?

What about Young's issues?

Or Maybin's drunk driving?

by cooper7d7 on Oct 30, 2006 9:33 PM EST up reply actions

Andrew Miller

While I voted other, and it was cast for Andrew Miller, I don't necessarily have a extremely strong feeling that Miller is a far better prospect than the other choices. My vote was cast for Andrew Miller as much because he wasn't even given in the group of possibilities. There is no way that Gallardo (as good as he was this year), Pelfrey, and Lincecum (and, for that case, Adam Miller) should be mentioned ahead of Andrew Miller...along with him I would buy, but not ahead. None of the other pitchers comes close to the raw stuff and projectability that Andrew Miller has, with the possible exception of Adam Miller. An added bonus is that he is the only left-hander in the group and the only one, other than Pelfrey, with any Major League experience. Adding to the above argument, I can't fathom Elijah Dukes being ranked this early. I would rank Andrew Miller ahead of both Dukes and Troy Tulowitzki at this point of those already placed in the rankings.

by Ed Stevens on Oct 30, 2006 8:51 PM EST reply actions

Wow.

I disagree with everything you just said. Miller, even though he was in Tiger pen, didn't pitch much, but was there because of his contract is far from as polished as the other pitchers being mentioned. No question in my mind that Miller is behind the learning curve compared to the guys on the list here. Dukes, not sure if he should be ranked as high as he is oozes potential and no one can deny that. Tuly is a SS with superstar potential. That alone and being at a such a thin position ranks him higher than Miller. Maybe when Miller actually accomplishes something. I honestly think that him pitching in the majors, or not pitching actually, sort of stunted his growth because he lost a lot of starts in the minors and time on the mound because of it.

by Havok1517 on Oct 30, 2006 10:13 PM EST up reply actions

Should get a tester

An. Miller deserves a tester. I wouldnt vote for him yet, but I agree w Ed that if Ad. Miller, Gallardo, Lincecum, Pelfrey are on the list, he should at least get a tester to show that we're at least thinking about him for the near future on the poll.

by rhd on Oct 31, 2006 1:43 AM EST up reply actions

Invalidates the List!!!

I want to make a brief point. I have seen "invalidates the list" many times. The pride any of us should take in "our" list should not be in how it reflects our opinions but in how we each contribute to it.

And we should be each trying to learn from this list. So if I thought of Dukes as #74 but the list has him at 15 then I'm probably thinking "maybe I have him too low" and can learn from the list.

Nothing other than invalid counting can invalidate the list. It is our list collectively. If you do not believe in it in such a way maybe you should not take part?

I personally enjoy this list, learn from it, and take a small amount of pride in it.

by pedrophile on Oct 30, 2006 10:56 PM EST reply actions

Kudos to you

... awesome response.

by Flynn Blake on Oct 30, 2006 11:56 PM EST up reply actions

Hear hear

Muchos kudos for that comment

by The Rocc on Oct 31, 2006 1:43 PM EST up reply actions

thanks guys

but I just posted first. I know many were thinking the same thing.

I appreciated your comments.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Oct 31, 2006 8:44 PM EST up reply actions

The thing about Dukes

Is that he isn't a horrible person at all, he's been very nice to fans at every stop in the organization and was very cordial to many Rays fans who talked to him at fanfest.

He just, for some reason, doesn't like certain family members of his and umps/teammates that have drawn his ire.

His fights with teammates, though the one with Ryan Knox(who was released from the organization) was the only one to ever be substantiated, where never really examined. Most people think that Dukes was the culprit of the fight, but that's because of his reputation. We don't know if Knox was drunk or something and started a fight with Dukes..

by The Rocc on Oct 31, 2006 1:42 PM EST reply actions