Balentien certainly doesn't seem like a guy who is ever going to be a .300 hitter, but I was actually encouraged by his improved skills this year.

Interesting list.  

I like the high rankings for Butler and Varvaro.  Varvaro in particular could move fast in 2007.

I was a little suprised by how high you ranked guys like Chen, Rowland-Smith, Minaker and Rohrbaugh.  My impression of each of these guys was that they had low ceilings, and weren't likely to be much more than role players or situational relievers.  Do you think that these guys are more than that?  Or is this just a weak system?  

Most of the people who follow the M's system closely are excited about some of the guys at the lowest levels of the system.  Greg Halman - a CFer in the NW league this year - is generating a lot of interest among the M's prospect mavens, but not nearly as much attention in non-team-specific rankings.  He is a toolsy player with a lot of upside, but he missed time this year with a broken hand.  Other guys that people like are Alex Liddi, Gerardo Avila, and Carlos Peguero.  The M's also signed two high-profile international players, SS Carlos Triunfel (D.R.) and OF Mario Martinez (Venezuela), that will be playing in the US next year at age 17.  

Do you have any opinions about these guys, or is it just too early to get a good idea of how they rate against more experienced players?  IMO, I will take a toolsy 17-year-old SS with big upside over Robert Rohrbaugh anyday.  

I had one more question for you.  Or, more accurately, a few linked quesitons.  

The M's have been crazy with their promotions lately.  They have guys like Adam Jones, Rob Johnson, Jeff Clement, Matt Tuiasosopo, and most of thier more advanced relievers (O'Flaherty, Lowe, Stephen Kahn, Mickolio, etc) playing at levels far beyond where most organizations would place them.  The promotions of Clement and Tuiasosopo in particular have drawn a lot of criticism.  To me, those promotions made zero sense.  

As a guy who focuses on stats quite a bit, does this type of organizational philosophy make it more difficult to rank prospects?  Someone like Adam Jones is a good example.  He has been rushed through the minors at breakneck speed, and already made his ML debut.  A lot of people point out his lack of plate discipline, but could that simply reflect the fact that he has been playing against far older competition and struggled to cope with aggressive promotions?  I would imagine it would be tough to change your approach at the plate after changing positions and starting AAA at age 20.  If Jones had spent all of 2005 in A+ and all of 2006 in AA (which is where he would have been in virtually any other organization besides Seattle), he probably would have put up gaudy numbers and gotten much more exposure from national prospect pundits.  

Do you take this into account with players who have struggled?  Rob Johnson and Matt Tuiasosopo are good examples of pretty good prospects who struggled after very questionable promotions.  

I was wondering what you take on this is.  Are the M's crazy?  Are they messing up their prospects?  And does their aggressive philosophy result in national prospect authorities undervaluing Mariners prospects?  

The debate on his defense attribute seems mixed, is he good/bad/horrid ? he looked fine to me in international plays. but some have said his 2B is atrocious?

I also think you're underrating Justin Thomas's stuff by labelling him a "another finesse lefty."  He pitches in the 89-92mph range with a slider that's at least a potentially average major league pitch.  In the hierarchy of Ms lefties, his stuff's significantly better than that of Robert Rohrbaugh and Ryan Rowland-Smith.