might not win because some people might not feel like typing his name down and won’t vote.

1 – I’m not very convinced that Baker is a good comp for Duffy, given the handedness difference

2 – your point about a #3 (such as Baker) being worth a lot is a good one. However, my point is that I want to see a projected #3 delivering the goods at AA or AAA, not at A before I slot him here. James McDonald or Eric Hurley? Sure.

3 – I’ve not seen anyobjective source that has rated Duffy as highly as you have here. A 50% chance at #3? For a 20-yr-old in A ball who’s tippy-toe, stretch-goal is as a #2? No.

4 – Rohrbough vs. Duffy is so close that I don’t think the difference in ages is really worth much. Any advantage for Duffy is negated by the fact that he hasn’t made it as far thru the injury nexus as Rohrbough. I spent A LOT of time trying to separate these guys for an analysis last year, and I basically just went with the guy with better mechanics and the better single pitch (Rohrbough). It didn’t work out that way in 2008, but both are still very early and have not yet matched up against higher levels. It could break either way still, and they are still very similar in terms of arsenal, stage, and handedness (obviously).

I just read the interview that jparks linked in his signature. Here is Goldstein talking about exactly what I was trying communicate regarding Duffy vs. Walden (or Perez):

Goldstein: You can’t do it. You absolutely cannot just go off stats. There are two questions that I always ask when evaluating prospects. The first one is: what is he doing performance-wise? The second one is: how is he doing it? It’s that “how is he doing it?” question that you can’t answer with a stat line. You can find two pitchers in High A that both have similar numbers, both have a 2.50 ERA and a strikeout per inning, and you say that you have two great prospects, but one is, and one isn’t, because one is a power guy that is blowing people away, and the other guy is a trick finesse guy that is just fooling people. Those are two very different prospects with equal stats.

We simulposted, both on Duffy and Perez.

As for Perez, a lot of relievers develop late, and command can come around. When you have the extremely filthy stuff that Perez has, it’s worth the gamble that the command can come around.

I’ve got a hard time buying Perez here. I’m still not sure that he’ll settle down enough to be a dominant closer, although I do buy his closing potential. That said, is he that much better than someone like the Marlins Jose Ceda, whose pure stuff is probably better, but will probably not make it onto a top 120 list for this community? Short of it is this – the way this list has gone so far, I’m just not sure Chris Perez is the best option. I think Perez and Ceda are both borderline 100 guys, likely better fits in the 101-150 range (well, I could probably narrow it down and say, 101-120 range).

Your description of Duffy does not meaningfully separate him from guys like Rohrbough or Troy Patton in my mind. Until I see these guys trick the hitters in AA or AAA, I’d rather have the ceiling of a guy with 2 dominant pitches who is already fooling hitters in the majors, even if it is only over 70 innings.

I’m all for taking guys in the low minors, but they have to have some dominant stuff, but they need to project as more than a #3 starter at best when they’re that low, otherwise the odds just become too great that the TINSTAAP risk will override the value of the best possible upside.

Madison Bumgarner or Phillipe Aumont or Neftali Feliz over a guy that is already in the majors, with 2 plus pitches and could very well become a dominant closer? Sure, I can buy that. But not Dan Duffy or Troy Patton or Cole Rohrbough…unless their offspeed stuff proves dominant in the upper minors.

His fastball/slider combo are both consider plus I believe, sitting 93-95 on the FB touching 97 and the slider in the mid to upper 80’s. Yeah, he has some control issues but they’re not really that big of a deal as RP vs. a starting pitcher. If he reduces the walk rate just a little he’ll be a dominating closer. That plus his readiness seals it for me.

However, I would much rather have the guy who knows how to pitch, has one plus pitch already (curve), a change that is becoming a plus pitch, and a fastball that is certainly more than adequate given his other pitches. He sits 90-91, and touches 94, per scouting reports.

That sounds a lot like Niese to me. Plus curve, FB sitting around 90, good quality complimentary change up. You can argue that Duffy was better than Niese at the same age and level in 2006, but Niese has clearly improved as he moved up and is pretty much ready now. There’s no big difference in ceiling there, but one guy hasn’t even pitched in A+ ball yet, while the other looked good in AA and AAA.

you taking a turn at taking this to 150. Keep those standards high!

Granted, I’ve never seen either of them pitch, so that’s the best proxy I can use for “stuff” without putting major effort into it.

from within the Cards organization alone, I don’t think he deserves to be rated above Jones and Perez, both of whom have just now started to get recognized on here.

As compared to other pitchers, he should probably be in the same conversation as most of the guys now being discussed.

That whole system is underrated for some reason. I like Jon Jay a lot more than some of the outfield schlock that’s being put on the list at this point.

You campaign for guys like Carter and Gonzalez, saying they’re as good or better than other guys already on the list, then you wait thirty spots and claim Doolittle is better than all of them. It’s like line-cutting.