BA's Appy League Top 20
by wobatus on Sep 17, 2008 2:02 PM EDT
49 comments
Flores lost out to beckham at number 1. Gabe Noriega 4th. man, he must be some fielder.
1. Tim Beckham, ss, Princeton Devil Rays
2. Wilmer Flores, ss, Kingsport Mets
3. Matt Moore, lhp, Princeton Devil Rays
4. Gabriel Noriega, ss, Pulaski Mariners
5. Mario Martinez, 3b, Pulaski Mariners
6. Randall Delgado, rhp, Danville Braves
7. Jordan Lyles, rhp, Greeneville Astros
8. Angel Morales, of, Elizabethton Twins
9. Albert Suarez, rhp, Princeton Devil Rays
10. Kelvin Herrera, rhp, Burlington Royals
11. Jon Gilmore, 3b, Danville Braves
12. Jay Austin, of, Greeneville Astros
13. Niko Vasquez, ss, Johnson City Cardinals
14. Craig Kimbrel, rhp, Danville Braves
15. Paul Clemens, rhp, Danville Braves
16. Gregory Infante, rhp, Bristol Sox
17. Sam Runion, rhp, Burlington Royals
18. Federico Hernandez, c, Greeneville Astros
19. Juan Silverio, ss, Bristol Sox
20. Fernando Cruz, 3b, Burlington Royals
1 recs |
49 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Beckham vs Flores
Beckham better be a great fielder and have all the tools. I don’t know much about him to be honest but, looking at his stats, there must be something to beat out Flores.
by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 17, 2008 2:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Too Subjective
Flores way out hit beckham and was 2 years younger. They also seem to like Flores’ fielding. I can’t find any reason to rank beckham first other than “I think it is so.” Here are some of the q and a on the chat about the appy top 20 and they seem to like flores but still gave beckham the nod.
Joe LeCates from Easton, MD asks:
Maybe the most impressive number put up by Flores was only 28 strikeouts in 245 AB’s at his age. I know it’s the Appy, but how good is his plate discipline right now?
A: Matt Eddy: Flores’ contact ability (coupled with impressive power) is what stood out to me, too. Plate discipline will have to be polished against more advanced pitchers, but Flores’ pitch recognition is already quite good, as he he has has the hand-eye coordination and reflexes to put all types of pitches in play.
Matt Eddy: You can see by his month-by-month walk totals that Flores became more selective later in the season, and that the higher strikeout totals resulted from his working deeper counts. As word got around the league about his ability, Flores began to see a lot more offspeed pitches early in counts. But in a positive sign, he recognized the pattern and looked offspeed early in his at-bats.
Q: Joe LeCates from Easton, MD asks:
With Marte as another young, talented third baseman in the Mets system, do you see he or Flores starting to learn a corner OF spot, or do the Mets just wait for Flores to move himself off SS and deal with it then?
A: Matt Eddy: Flores will be developed as a shortstop, at least early in his career. He led all Appy League shortstops in every cumulative defensive category — total chances, putouts, assists, double plays, etc. And his fielding percentage was above the league average.
Matt Eddy: Flores and Jefry Marte (Dominican signee and a top GCL prospect) could conceivably play the left side of the infield for the Sand Gnats next season. What’s interesting about Flores’ development at short is that, according to the Mets, he played mostly third base and outfield in his native Venezuela, so that the organization had to instruct him in the finer points of shortstop play in extended spring — things like making plays in the hole and getting his feet behind him on throws.
by wobatus on Sep 17, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um
Subjective?
That is the POINT.
That is the whole point of reading anything BA, or anyone else, has to say on a prospect… especially when looking at teenagers in the Appy League.
Why even CARE about BA or even think about logging onto their site if you aren’t looking for their subjective, expert opinion?
by nms on Sep 17, 2008 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stats
This is rookie ball.
Flores does not project as a SS, and if he ends up sticking there it is highly unlikely that he will be much of a defender. Beckham projects as an above average SS. Here is Eddy on this specific subject:
Q: Landon from Pittsburgh asks:
I dont understand your logic on Beckham over Flores. Flores is a year younger. Just as athletic. More advanced, and has 35-40 HR potential and a plus hit tool. Explain why Beckham is ahead please.
A:
Matt Eddy: One more Flores question . . . Beckham ranked ahead of Flores, just as the capsule says, because of his true up-the-middle profile. Because Beckham has major league actions and a strong arm, he’ll have little trouble sticking at shortstop — and it’s much more difficult for clubs to find strong hitters at short than it is at third base or on an outfield corner.
Matt Eddy: The jury is still out on Flores at shortstop, but the consensus was that he lacked the quickness to play short everyday at the higher levels. Players ranging from David Eckstein to Jed Lowrie have overcome this stigma to play SS in the big leagues, it should be noted. But in the case of the Mets, Jose Reyes will be just 28 in 2011, the most optimistic arrival time for Flores, so the SS question may be moot.
Matt Eddy: While true that Flores’ offensive ceiling appears to be higher, Beckham is no slouch. He’s got the bat speed, and he’s mature enough and coachable enough to develop into a plus offensive player. He reminded one Appy League manager of B.J. Upton at a similar stage in his development.
by aCone419 on Sep 17, 2008 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's great and all....
But we’re talking the difference between “okay fielder” and “great fielder” and the difference between “potential hitter” and “already hitting”. The plusses and minus just don’t add up for me.
Oh well, I guess #1 and #2 on these kinds of lists are pretty interchangeable anyway.
by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 17, 2008 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When rookie league stats suddenly have predictive value
that might be an argument. It’s been shown over and over again that rookie league stats have little to no predictive value. This is a training league, not a playing league. The coaches tend to be more worried about training the players, and getting them to do certain things, than getting them to hit well in games so they can win games. Sure, if someone is young and dominant in rookie league, it can be a decent sign that they will do well in the future, but it’s by no means a predictor of even the next year’s performance, much less major league performance.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Sep 18, 2008 1:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No doubt
But there’s something to be said about results when they’re THAT different. Scouting is not just about tools, it’s about whether a player can use his tools or not. That’s a measure of success as a prospect as well. “stats” aren’t that important but they still mean SOMETHING.
by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 18, 2008 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
then why bother keeping stats or ranking them
What’s the point of ranking them based on what elague their in or keeping stats at all? I understand they have little predictive value, but Flores isn’t seen as an untoolsy player who had flukish success with slow bat speed raking raw pitchers throwing 70 mph. He way outperformed Beckham.
Now, someone like Dereck Jeter did terribly in rookie ball (just one of millions of examples) and turned out ok.
But Neftali Soto did ok in rookie ball last year, even better this year, and lo and behold, he could hit in low A too. David Wright went .391/.458 oba/slug in rookie ball at 18. Turned out ok.
You might as well not rank based on league, throw out all stats, and say these are the guys we like by sight.
Flores has tools and well outperformed. So what if he is blocked? So what if he ends at 3rd (also blocked), or left? What if Beckham equals Steven Drew and Flores equals David Wright in 5 years (not saying they are comps, but just relative value of a shortstop with pop versus a slugging 3b)? Who would you rather have?
by wobatus on Sep 18, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
for the most part Rookie and Short-Season ball guys ARE just ranked on “how we like ’em” by sight.
Actually the League lists in general have this philosophy, since they aren’t about ranking who is the best in general but just who looked the best to the scouts/coaches/managers of a given league. That is why sometimes you will see two different guys who each spent a half year in the Carolina league and the 2nd half in the Southern League and you’ll see guy A be #5 in Caro but #10 in Southern and Guy B be #10 in Caro and #5 in SL.
But rookie and short-season league rankings are, by necessity, almost all scouting based.
Stats only matter if they mean something. And it is abundantly clear, if you look at the facts, that teenagers stats in rookie and short season ball DONT mean a whole hell of a lot.
They are great to look at,
Plus, consider the source. Why pay any attention to BAs rankings at all if you aren’t looking for their take and the opinions of the baseball folks they use as sources. Any of us and can go look up Beckhams numbers. The whole reason to care about BAs rankings is to know what the “visual” opinions are
by nms on Sep 18, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
except
This decision seemed to be based on fact flores won’t stay at short and is blocked at short. The guys even said they were impressed with flores power and pitch recognition, talked about actual stats, like walk rate going up as season progressed, fewer strikeouts.
Frankly, i think they are giving far too much weight to fact Beckham will stay at short. They also overestimate how many great hitting thirdbasemen there have been in baseball if they say it is so much easier to fill. It is easier, but I’d prefer a great 3b to a good ss, and beckham’s peformance at bat just wasn’t that good. I don’t care if it is rookie league. If he performs later on, great, and I can see ranking him high, but not number 1 over someone as gifted AND with the performance levels of Flores at his age. And Flores ain’t a nobody, but a top international signing.
Plus, as we all know, the dudes at BA actually suck. :)
by wobatus on Sep 18, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
plus
we all know their visual opinions often seem comically wrong in hindsight, why they love toolsy guys that often end up being just that and nothing more. I want to know what they think, and often they see what statheads don’t (or whomever they speak to see it), but I am entitled to look at the list and think maybe they are wrong.
People have said, gee, look at their lists from 6 years ago, no one on it made it." Maybe because they ignore performance almost altogether. Guys do make it to the big leagues from rookie ball, just that BA doesn’t spot the ones that will.
Anyway, i am just busting. What do i know. I have never even seen Beckham play. :)
by wobatus on Sep 18, 2008 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually
i’d wager that if you look at the guys who are MLBers that were left off of league lists from years ago those guys probably weren’t performing so hot then either.
Its baseball, teenagers suck at it.
Think about the draft. Appy league guys are generally at about the same stage of development as they were when drafted. And in the draft there are always guys who will have no career taken right before future All-Stars.
It happens.
And really, if you don’t like how Law, BA, BP, Sickles, ect ranks folks and don’t trust them as an accurate source why BOTHER CARING about what they say or how they rank.
That is the whole point of reading someones lists, the assumption is that you value their opinion as expert and their input means something to you and can help you know more about things.
If you don’t feel that someones opinion means anything, why do you care what their opinion is?
by nms on Sep 18, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
one more thing
BA lists like this do factor in the individual writers choices those choices on leagues like this are based on the the evaluations of talent they are given by the scouts and managers and such. So the “visual observation” is really done by the baseball folks who cover the league.
Furthermore, I think you’ve got a really silly idea of what “statheads” are for.
As I’ve said 100 times. Stats don’t matter unless they mean something and statistics are the exact things that, if you study things, will show you how little Appy League stats mean.
Being stathead doesn’t mean just ranking dudes by OPS or ISO or walk rate or whatever. A monkey can do that.
The whole point of looking at a prospects stats is to see if a guys stats now can predict what he can do down the road at the MLB level. And Appy League stats are tremendously poor at that.
by nms on Sep 18, 2008 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not making a holy war
hell, i just said i have never even seen beckham play. And i care, to a degree what they say.
But I think you can combine an eye for talent with an eye to what is actually accomplished. I like a guy who scouts like a lot AND who performs somewhat. Flores performed. beckham did not perform at all. His stats sucked. he struck out a ton. I don’t think that can have no meaning whatsoever.
A softtossing curveballer with guile strining out a ton of 18 year olds with slop, that is meaningless. I doubt 8 homers with few strikeouts at 16 is so meaningless compared to beckham’s wretched performance. Come on, those stats were horrible. What, were they telling him ’try hitting blindfolded" as a teching mechanism?
Again, i am being a bit facetious. Anyway, i prefer John’s take usually to BA’s take.
We’ll see in a few years. Me? I think Flores’s rookie stats, like Soto’s last eyar and Wright’s year’s ago, combined with the tools most acknoowledge, will hold up.
That said, everyone loved Beckham coming into the draft so i am sure he is mega talented.
by wobatus on Sep 18, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frankly
You are giving way too little weight to what position they will most likely end up playing. It matters a lot. SS is one of the weakest hitting positions, and whether you play there or on a corner makes a big difference. And your “great/good” distinction is completely arbitrary. Either of these guys could be great, good, or awful.
by aCone419 on Sep 18, 2008 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for...
Nothing! Really though, sorry, but I hate the prospect copout. I think Beckham could be nothing but Flores cant be nothing…barring the unforseen injury.
by casejud on Sep 19, 2008 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
Of course Flores can be “Nothing.” Hitting well in the Appy league doesn’t guarantee you anything. Frankly, as a #1 overall pick Beckham is all but guaranteed to be a major leaguer at the least, and you can’t say the same for Flores.
by aCone419 on Sep 22, 2008 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it doesn't matter
if you don’t care if it is rookie league.
The only things that matter are the facts of the situation. And the facts of the situation are that rookie league stats mean so very, very little.
And they are not saying that a great SS with no bat is better than a good 3b with a good bat.
They are considering Beckham to be a good hitter, and when that is added to his strong SS glove that makes for a great player.
You are making it out to be that the choice is between a great 3b and a good SS but that, clearly, isn’t what BA is projecting.
It seems they are comparing the two as… very good 3b vs. very good SS and understandably going with the SS.
And what is the point of waiting til a guy performs later on to rank him where he deserves when it comes to prospecting. The WHOLE POINT is to PREDICT what will happen and if you are confident a guy will hit why rank him lower now?
That isn’t predicting anything.
Plus you’re making way too big of a deal out a #1 vs #2 thing. The difference between a App League #1 and #2, with the players being so far away, is not large at all. You’re making a matter of taste into a holy war
by nms on Sep 18, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
y'all likely no more than I do
Actually, BA’s list from 5 years ago for appy league not bad: Chris Young, 0enard Span, Daric Barton and Rafael Perez all made their top 10.
Still, when I hear stuff about an average speed good fielding shortstop with hitting potential…I get hung up on average speed. They say Noriega is average speed good field too.
Hell, Beckham could be Shawon Dunston without the speed. OK, that was harsh. I assume scouting has advanced some in 25 years since Dunston was number 1 overall. :)
Shawon didn’t have awful numbers in GCL though. I know. Numbers don’t count in rookie ball.
The scouts also made a comparison to Miggy Cabrera for Flores.
OK, how about Flores is Miggy Cabrera and Beckham is Dunston redux. I don’t care if he is a good fielding ss and projects as ahitter, so did Dunston. I’ll take crappy fielding Miggy. :) I kid, I kid…
All in good fun gentleman. Maybe Beckham will be like Jeter, who also “stunk” staistically in rookie ball. I know, everyone hates Jeter’s fielding now, but when he was Beckham’s age? I actually forget what they said about him then.
by wobatus on Sep 18, 2008 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His fielding was historically bad back then
BJ Upton at short level. Did a lot to improve though, and people knew he had the tools to stay there if he could improve his technique and concentration.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Sep 19, 2008 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't he make like 50+ errors in A ball?
I think I remember that…
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
by doublestix on Sep 19, 2008 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta call VS on that last one...
Nothiong agaisnt you but I H-A-T-E that argument…
If the numbers of the ranking arent significant they shouldn’t number the prospects!
Saying that Beckham is going to be a better player than Flores is fine but you cant go back and say they are just interchangeable. If that is the case then there is no reason to read there list or for it to even be a list.
Btw, I’ll go back and check but Ive found that guys who hit WELL in the minors at a very young age (like Flores) to be EXTREMELY predictive. A guy who shows ANY ability to hit at that age does mean a lot predictavily, I think. that a kid like Beckham struggled some at first in limited play doesnt.
Btw, the guy wasnt starting a holy war he was saying Flores is a better baseball player than Beckham and BA is wrong just often enough and in just the same way (#1 pick…duh) that it is quite valid. Shoot, the existence of Matt Bush makes it valid.
by casejud on Sep 19, 2008 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
who says you need numbers to rank prospects
the whole basis of that argument is bunk.
They are ranking players based on how good they are. You don’t NEED numbers to do that, it helps but it isn;’t needed.
People rank prep prospects in every sport without numbers and they rank college prospects in every sport where numbers tell only a wee little bit.
Also, if you’d like to explain why you can’t make a list when two players are similarly good I’d love to hear it.
by nms on Sep 19, 2008 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really my point but...
what I was quibbling with was that when a guy is ranked 1 and another guy is ranked 2 that is significant or else why number them.
by casejud on Sep 19, 2008 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, it is and it isn't
You’re right that there should be a reason and if there isn’t, it’s kind of dumb, but we’re also all sort of aware that we’re dealing with an incredible amount of variables with such young players and you’d probably be about as effective if you ranked them randomly rather than thought about it.
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Sep 19, 2008 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
with you for the most part especially the lower you go in the minors but I don’t think it is quite THAT random but perhaps. I’ll say this…we on here get so good (some of us) at evaluating players with the slightest of evidence…stats, a clip here, a comment there that I think if we got to watch these guys play every day for a week or a month or a season it wouldn’t seem like such a crapshoot.
I guess i mean that the numbering of the prospects SHOULD be at least what the people doing the numbering believe. For the sake of debating it at least. As far as it holding water 5 years down the line well that is the point of the numbering and the debating or …again… why number them I say. Just my opinion.
by casejud on Sep 19, 2008 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
also
Matt Bush is not a good example to hold up for your point about draft picks being wrong.
It is 100% obvious that that pick was not made for talent reasons.
And, again, I wasn’t saying Flores is or isn’t better than Beckham. My point is that, since I’m assuming no one here has seen both play, it is silly to look at Appy league stats as justification for that belief since they lack significant meaning.
by nms on Sep 19, 2008 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have heard that argument a LOT...
about Matt Bush but I dont completely believe it. What I mean is that while I am certain that the scouts or baseball people didnt have him as thier FIRST CHOICE or maybe even thier second or third (and that he was forced upon them by ownership) I doubt if they had him ranked as someone who CANT PLAY in the big leagues.
It’s kinda the maximum possible error as far as the draft goes and it has happened quite a bit. I believe 6-7 or #1 overall picks have either not played in the majors at all or played very little. Not saying Beckham is going to be one of them. I realize guys can develop a lot at that age but when I see one who CANT hit in the Appy league i get suspicious. No amount of excuse making/ projection can convince me otherwise either. I’ve heard it too much over the years.
by casejud on Sep 19, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no
no one has ever said you what you said in paragraph one.
But there is a huge difference between a guy who is a #1 talent and a top 10-15 talent. It is very disappointing when a top 10-15 guy doesn’t develop but it is understood that it happens sometimes. People aren’t looking at Chris Lubanski orRyan Harvey doesn’t develop.
It is a big disappointment but it isn’t a WTF thing.
The difference in MLB success rates between the #1 overall guy and even the #5 overall guy is huge.
by nms on Sep 21, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stats are kept to help players feel good about themselves. It's their identity to most of us.
Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.
by 306008 on Sep 21, 2008 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
eddy
yeah, that question and answer came up later.
Beckham 177 at bats .243/.297/.345, 43/13 k/bb
Flores .310/..352/.490 28/12 k/bb.
More than a year and a half younger. Apparently fielded ok but will likely be moved, beckham has the “action” of a major league shortsstop, in their view and scouts eyes.
Who knows, but Flores seems like a better hitter by leaps and bounds right now.
by wobatus on Sep 17, 2008 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another funny thing...
Is that good fielding Shortstops are all over the place…hitters are rare. I saw Beckham swing the bat 3 times in a all star gane and right away I couldnt see what all the fuss was about with him at the plate. Personally DO NOT get him as the top pick but the Rays have been really good drafting so I’ll give them the BOTD. Also have read scouting reports that have questioned his hitting several times. I think he is just not that great of a hitting talent myself but I guess we’ll see.
Meanwhile, trust your instincts. Guys on here love to make excusus for someone performing/ not performing when it suits thier taste. I think that stats, when looked at logicly and in context (such as Flores being extremely young and showing ANY hitting skill at that age)
by casejud on Sep 19, 2008 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
how can you trust instincts
when your “instincts” are based on 200 rookie ball at-bats?
by nms on Sep 19, 2008 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm?
How many at-bats do you need before your instincts are called in? Like, obviously I wouldn’t consider a scout’s instincts to be prophecy, but they do have some value
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Sep 19, 2008 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have seen both
I do PA for an Appy League team and saw both play at various points this season… Flores did not appear to be too big for the position, even when he fills out, he seemed to be athletic enough to play above average D compared to the rest of OUR league. His bat was obviously very good, but from hearing some instructors from other teams in the league talk, he is quite streaky and I did see him follow up awful nights at the plate where pitchers made him look terrible with 3-4 performances. Beckham though was far and away the best overall athlete in the league, he struggled with the bat the first month or so but was really hitting the ball hard the last time I saw him and showed great range
All that having been said, Beckham did things athletically at bat and in the field that showed pretty readily that he had the higher ceiling of the two players. Noriega had a better glove than both of them however and also showed a little pop as the season wore on.
And of the top 4 Mario Martinez was by far the most impressive hitter, he hit the ball hard to all fields and really worked the count. He did have quite a few strike outs but those seem to be a product of being too patient instead of overly aggressive.
by tmsnow on Sep 19, 2008 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the insight...
appreciate it. Martinez was a highly bonused latin kid recently right?
I’d say that with Flores a little streakiness is to be expected for a kid as young as he. Rather amazing that he was 16 for some or most of the season. I looked and i couldn’t find anybody who did anything in that league at that age in the lst 20 years though Andruw Jones had a great season there at age 17.
by casejud on Sep 19, 2008 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Princeton's RHSP Joseph Cruz
Surprised Albert Suarez was 9th over his teammate Cruz.
http://www.raysprospects.com/
by DAM on Sep 17, 2008 3:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Matt Moore
He seemed really excited about him, comparing him favorably to Kazmir and McGee at the same age – is he for real?
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Sep 18, 2008 11:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He didn't think Moore was in the same class as Kazmir
What he said was that Moore was similar in style. He described Kazmir’s pitches as a class above Moore’s. That said, he did think Moore had a high ceiling.
by JayWise on Sep 18, 2008 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rays fans seem to think so
He’s been a breakout candidate for a while, and he’s added a couple ticks on his fastball since HS, when he was the New Mexico pitcher of the year. It might be hard to tell for a while though. The Rays front office has been moving pitchers at a snail’s pace, generally having them spend a full season in each of rookie ball, short season and low-A. He’s a much better prospect than McGee was though when they were both on the same level.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Sep 18, 2008 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Out of curiosity
What do you think about him in relation to Nick Barnese?
www.loftylantern.com
by OldProspects on Sep 19, 2008 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most, including me ranked Barnese ahead of Moore, but there are some who had Moore ranked higher.
Both are really close and based on the scouting reports that have come out, I’d lean toward Moore being the better prospect because he’s a lefty that throws harder. Both are really good pitchers who are a long, long way away.
Tools Whore
Sign Bonds!
by Tyler on Sep 20, 2008 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Snail's pace?
I feel like theyre one of the few teams doing it the right way.
by alskor on Sep 21, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
