BA Top 25
by NYYLover1000 on Jul 17, 2007 5:36 PM EDT
Email
Printhttp://www.baseballamerica.com/online/prospects/features/264495
- Justin Upton, of, Diamondbacks
- Jay Bruce, of, Reds
- Cameron Maybin, of, Tigers
- Evan Longoria, 3b, Devil Rays
- Homer Bailey, rhp, Reds
- Clayton Kershaw, lhp, Dodgers
- Clay Buchholz, rhp, Red Sox
- Jacob McGee, lhp, Devil Rays
- Joba Chamberlain, rhp, Yankees
- Adam Jones, of, Mariners
- Wade Davis, rhp, Devil Rays
- Colby Rasmus, of, Cardinals
- Brandon Wood, 3b, Angels
- Andrew McCutchen, of, Pirates
- Fernando Martinez, of, Mets
- Deolis Guerra, rhp, Mets
- Travis Snider, of, Blue Jays
- Joey Votto, 1b, Reds
- Eric Hurley, rhp, Rangers
- Nick Adenhart, rhp, Angels
- Jeff Clement, c, Mariners
- Carlos Carrasco, rhp, Phillies
- Chuck Lofgren, lhp, Indians
- Gio Gonzalez, lhp, White Sox
- Reid Brignac, ss, Devil Rays
I think Guerra is a little bit too High and Fernando Martinez as well but list is ok not perfect obviously but ok.
114 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My 1st Thought
I use to be a subscriber but then it ran out
by NYYLover1000 on Jul 17, 2007 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
They Have the Little Plate Next To It
It's definitely subscriber only.
Where's Phil Hughes
I wouldn't put him on the list either
Besides I CAN'T WATCH KEI IGAWA.
by NYYLover1000 on Jul 17, 2007 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Hughes
needs more garlic seasoning.
by LipstickOnDipstick on Jul 17, 2007 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Guerra
But Guerra should have been lucky to break the Top 40 list, not the Top 20 list.
by cmaff05 on Jul 17, 2007 5:35 PM EDT reply actions
Another thing is this, if you gonna have Guerra
David Price....
anyway, i'm shocked how much i agree with this list, given that i haven't been following BA as much as i used to (having everyone on this website report back information has made me lazy). personally, i love Guerra and Adenhart's ranking and am really happy with Snider and Hurley's placement. a bunch of the others, i disagree with, but these four made me pretty happy.
(OK -- in fairness, i guess Guerra is too high, but i think having him in the 20s is perfectly reasonable, and this ranking is MUCH better than where this community is putting him.)
by bleedjaxblue on Jul 17, 2007 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Well he's gonna be a minor leaguer once he signs
by NYYLover1000 on Jul 17, 2007 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
his numbers last year....
now he's throwing fast. and he's striking people out. and his ARL is other-worldly. if he had put EVERYTHING together all at once, we'd be discussing him next to Upton. as is -- and considering how little i think of pitching stats, anyway -- i think he fits just fine in the teens.
by bleedjaxblue on Jul 17, 2007 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions
but he
so why isnt tabata highly rated if we are giving guys with a "couple" of warts places among the elite prospects in the game? he is only missing some power, but his ARL is otherworldy as well.
by bmxstreetrider86 on Jul 17, 2007 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions
my answers
since when is Jose Tabata being ignored? he's been listed SIGNIFICANTLY higher than Guerra on both this season's and last season's community prospect lists. he was also higher on last season's BA list. he dropped this year because being a good hitter at 19 in the FSL really isn't all that "other-wordly."
if he wanted to keep as high a ranking (not that he couldn't get there again), he'd have had to either: 1) advance at an extremely rapid pace (he hasn't), or 2) elevate his production while staying at an impressive (though not outstanding) ARL (instead, his production has regessed -- though I'm perfectly happy to believe things will improve if/when he recovers from injury).
------------
second, on Guerra:
first off, as i said, i don't take pitching stats too seriously. but, if i were, i certainly wouldn't have a problem with an 18-year-old who's striking out over 7-per-9 in high-A. especially when it's an improvement over the previous season, despite moving up a level.
second, i think it's a lot more reasonable to assume someone with slew of plus and plus-plus pitches who has also demonstrated an advanced feel for the game will start to dominate than to expect someone to develop power "just because."
finally, as i keep implying, i weight production versus projection much more heavily toward projection for pitchers than i do hitters. (of course, i care more about ARL for hitters than pitchers, but, given Guerra's ages, I would say his age is plenty important.)
by bleedjaxblue on Jul 17, 2007 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions
ok
second- the FSL is historically a heavy PITCHERS league. the fact that guerra isn t putting up very good numbers there is troubling. right now he is holding his own, but tabata has excelled in just about every phase of the game except hitting for power, guerra has excelled in some things (bb/9, maybe h/9) but his k rates, HR's allowed (among other things are nothing special
third- hitters tend to peak MUCH later than pitchers. hitters learn more as they go where as pitchers tend to peak around
fourth- i never said or implied tabata will develop power "just because, i belive he will develop power becuase he has plus-plus batspeed, very good pitch recognition, and he seems to always put the barrel of the bat on the ball. he has also played in pretty poor hitters parks in his career
the problem with tabata is that right now we have 4 of the best OF prospects in recent years excelling (upton, bruce, maybin, rasmus) who are all older and have done very-very well so far. tabatas only "competition" has been promoted agressively and gets points for simply holding his own in AA.
compared to his peers rite now he might not look like a great prospect, but if you look at im in a vacuum- hes pretty damn good
by bmxstreetrider86 on Jul 17, 2007 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions
not sure I like then use...
Guerra's performance is "troubling"? Hardly. Really. That's ridiculous. I get that the FSL favors pitchers, and even that that moderately increases K/9. But his performance isn't "troubling" in the slightest.
Tabata is "excelling"? He's doing fine, especially for his age, but (for a corner outfield prospect especially) I don't think he's setting the world on fire.
i'll speak on DOB in my response to the post below.
my ranking of Tabata (who this really wasn't about until you made it about him) has nothing to do with other outfield prospects -- and are you implying Guerra's doing well because there aren't other PITCHING prospects?
finally: "third- hitters tend to peak MUCH later than pitchers. hitters learn more as they go where as pitchers tend to peak around "
well, ignorning the part where this drifted off, i said that, didn't i? remember when i said "ARL is more important for hitters."
i'm assuming you drifted off in this sentence because there really is no answer when pitchers peak -- it's all over the place. but not many of them pitch WELL at age 17, period, which, to me, makes ARL important again. it makes Guerra exceptional. so, yes, i care about his age. for me to think Tabata was "exceptional," he'd have to make a September debut. last year, the ARL/performance combination made him fairly special. this year, not so much. and, frankly, if it weren't for Yankees fans, i don't think there'd be much talk at all about how "special" anything else about him was. i still believe in him, but he's not top 20 material right now -- not unless he does something to prove he deserves that status. Deolis Guerra right now has -- and, no, I'm not talking about the K/9.
by bleedjaxblue on Jul 17, 2007 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions
ok
why does tabata have to make a september debut to be exceptional? i dont think kershaw will be making his debut this september-does that mean he is not exceptional? hardly
using the point that in order to be exceptional a 18-19 has to make his debut this september is a completely arbitrary notion that you invented that really has no credence whatsover
also. how is a teenager hitting for average, getting on base, stealing bases, and not striking out often not impressive on context to the FSL?
what exatcly has guerra done that is any bit impressive, by the way, besides be 18
by bmxstreetrider86 on Jul 17, 2007 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions
answers
"pitcher generally peak around 22-23"
WHAT!?!?!!? Since when? I don't even know what to say to that. David Price better get to the majors FAST if the D-Rays don't want to catch him on the tail-end of his career.
I mean, besides arm-injuries and coke-addictions, how many great pitchers can you name who had their peaks at 23? Actually, we can make this a list -- you name the ones who had their best season at 23 or earlier (minus injuries), and I'll make one for pitchers who had their peak season at 30 or later. Does that sound as unreasonable to you as it does to me?
Here's what I will (and have) agreed to: 1) pitchers peak at more random ages (though never, ever, EVER at 23 -- I still can't believe you said that), 2) the age at which a pitcher is excelling is less important, because there's no standard projection curve for pitchers, meaning improvements with age aren't bound to come.
But 23? Come on. If anything, most pitchers (who survive arm injuries) peak later than hitters. It's just not as important how well they did when they were young.
2)
"using the point that in order to be exceptional a 18-19 has to make his debut this september is a completely arbitrary notion that you invented that really has no credence whatsover"
Besides me pointing out the irony of you choosing the arbitrary and unfounded age of 23 for pitchers, I will say where I'm getting that number.
There are EXTREMELY high success rates for hitters who can hold their own in the majors at age 19. If Tabata can do that (and he still has a while to get a chance to do it), then he'd be "exceptional" -- he would need almost zero statistical production to prove he was a premier prospect.
At the age of 20, it's not so cut-and-dried. Obviously, the ARL can still be "impressive." But you'd need performance for it to NECESSITATE being a top prospect. Tabata has some performance, but not exceptional performance. Tabata has a quite good ARL, but it's not exceptional. The combination? Well, I think you get where I'm going from here.
3)
"how is a teenager hitting for average, getting on base, stealing bases, and not striking out often not impressive on context to the FSL"
impressive? yes. Tabata's highly ranked. CLEARLY not highly ranked enough to brag to your Mets fan friends about it, but that's a separate issue. all i said was it wasn't EXCEPTIONAL. it's just very encouraging. fully worthy of being at the back end of the top 25 in my book. i'll bet BA didn't have him too much worse.
4)
"what exatcly has guerra done that is any bit impressive, by the way, besides be 18"
well, i thought we covered this, but, in review:
- pitched extremely well in full-season ball at the absurd age of 17, flashing one of the minor's best change-ups
- held his own in the FSL, adjusting to his growing body
- developed an OUTSTANDING arsenal, combined with an extremely advanced feel for pitching, at the tender age of 18, which far outweighs his pitching stats (have I mentioned that you're stressing an 18-year-old pitcher in the low-minor's stats too much?)
by bleedjaxblue on Jul 17, 2007 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions
straight out of
"Tony Matz (Boston): Buchholz? He is doing at 22/23 what Hughes did at 19/20...Bah to you sir!
Nate Silver: I think he's a touch overrated as a prospect, but as I've written about before, pitchers are often at their very best when they're 22/23. The same is generally not true for hitters."
- so there is a high rate of success for teenagers in MLB? thats silly. just becuase andruw jones (who is a borderline HOF) made the majors at 19 doesnt mean its easy. holding your own, at any level, should make you a top prospect. it should be based on tools, performance, ARL, ect. you shouldnt get bonus points because your team is more aggressive with promotions
- i dont have any met fan friends and it doesn matter, i would just mention that joba is #9 anyway
the highest team BA in the FSL is .274, not the median, the highest- tabata is around .310
the highest team OBP is .351, the average is somewhere around .330-tabata is at .374
#2 prospect on that list, Jay Bruce, hit .325/.379 BA/OBP- tabata is at .311/.374
tabata is 9th in BA, 16th in OBP and SB's, playing against much older competition
i would call that excelling
- tabata MORE than held his own at Low-A at the absurd age of 17 (even if he is older)- flashing some of the minors best bat-speed
- tabata is MORE than holding his own in the FSL, which is much more impressive considering he is hitting in a pitchers league in a pitcher park, where guerra is pitching in a pitchers league and in a pitcher park
- tabata is showing an outstanding ability to hit for anverage and get on base, while putting the ball in play often at the tender age of 18, which isnt enough (for some) to far outweigh his stats
why do 18 year old pitchers stats count less than 18 year old hitters stats?
by bmxstreetrider86 on Jul 17, 2007 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions
FSL
OK
- Then Nate Silver is smoking something. Make a list of all-stars, Hall of Famers, whatever you want. Tell me how many of them had their peaks at 23. None? Alright, good. The only thing Nate Silver could possibly mean that's not absurd is that they are "often" at their best -- in other words, what I said: You can't predict they'll get better, since they sometimes don't ever improve (even if their arms stay healthy.
- "just becuase andruw jones (who is a borderline HOF) made the majors at 19 doesnt mean its easy"
3) "the highest team BA in the FSL is .274, not the median, the highest- tabata is around .310"
Jesus, man. The HIGHEST team BA in the MLB (is .290). Someone who was hitting 36 points higher doesn't necessarily make my "top 20 hitters in the majors" list.
The highest OBP in the majors is .357. Someone with an OBP of .380 is not necessarily a top 20 player in the majors. ESPECIALLY if he's a corner outfielder who doesn't hit for power.
Like I said -- IMPRESSIVE numbers. But you're treating them like they get him into elite territory. They don't. It takes faith to believe he's in that territory -- that he'll develop power.
4) "#2 prospect on that list, Jay Bruce, hit .325/.379 BA/OBP- tabata is at .311/.374"
PLEASE!!!!! The reason Jay Bruce is number 2 has EVERYTHING to do with power. Which Tabata doesn't have. I'm insulted you would compare their BA/OBP. Forget that Jay Bruce is in triple-A, not high-A, now.
5) "why do 18 year old pitchers stats count less than 18 year old hitters stats?"
Well, it's just an opinion -- and one that not everyone has to share. It is one a lot of people have though.
The opinion is that pitching stats are less predictive of future performance than hitting stats are. Therefore, it's more worthwhile to rely on scouting for pitchers. Hitters are more predictable, period, and can be done so more readily with their stats.
You seem to understand that hitters and pitchers have different peaks just fine, so I imagine you can understand this distinction between modes of analysis too.
6) Just a small point, but stop mentioning Tabata's steals -- he won't steal bases in the majors, so it doesn't really affect the projection of him as a player.
by bleedjaxblue on Jul 17, 2007 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions
nate silver
can they get better and improve? sure. but hitters are much better bets to improve as they go along and learn than pitchers are.
stats relative to the league are VERY important in the minors. you cant just dismiss them and compare them to the majors. those numbers are especially impressive in the context that he is a teenager, in the FSL, in a pitcher park, putting up well above average numbers in some categories. and its not just the stats, the scouting reports back that up
and jay bruce being number 2 isnt just about power, its about his ALL AROUND hitting ability. if power was the only thing that made you a top prospect then chip cannon or shelly duncan would be #2
also, who said tabata wont steal bases in the majors? he has done it his entire career so far and hasnt shown signs of slowing down. he could easily be a 20 sb guy in the majors.
by bmxstreetrider86 on Jul 17, 2007 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions
You're misreading Silver
Pitchers tend to have a less linear growth than hitters. It doesn't mean what Guerra is doing isn't impressive. They're probably basing the ranking more on his projection rather than his current stats.
Tabata's numbers are nice for the FSL. The point is that it isn't remarkable. Good hitting numbers as a 19 yo in A+ ball is impressive but not exceptional.
Bruce is highly rated because of how he succeeded in AA as well.
by Raskolnikov on Jul 17, 2007 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Can we stop replying to the thread
And Law is not alone that is a commonly held belief. Its part of the basis of TINSTAPP
Basically pitchers dont have to grow much, if you can locate a 90+ fastball and a good breaking ball you can get out any hitters whether its low A or the majors.
Most of what I have read states that pitchers tend to be their best at about 23 and then get worse very slowly from then on until their 30's
by Kanst42 on Jul 17, 2007 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
sorry
by Grrranderson on Jul 18, 2007 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions
dude
sorry if i implied to you "power in a vacuum is why Jay Bruce is a good prospect." i don't know how you managed to read it that way, but, if you really did, i CERTAINLY didn't mean that.
AGE has something to do with it. yes, his ability to hit along with the power makes him better (though, given the strikeout rates, i don't think many people expect him to maintain the batting average, taking away a lot of your claim).
so, no, 26-year-old Shelley Duncan and 25-year-old Chip Cannon are NOT top prospects. 19-year-old Jay Bruce in triple-A, hitting for truckloads of power is.
i'm not "dismissing" Jose Tabata. somehow, you made this to be about Tabata. he's a good prospect. but he's NOT hitting for power -- which is the rarest tool for hitters to possess -- and that makes putting him in the top 20 a much more "aggressive" ranking -- one i'm not sure i'd be willing to support.
[on that note, if you actually read what i said in the beginning, i don't actually have Guerra in my own top 20, but rather just outside of it -- i was just happy Guerra got proper recognition, albeit a bit too much, as opposed to around here.]
"also, who said tabata wont steal bases in the majors? he has done it his entire career so far and hasnt shown signs of slowing down. he could easily be a 20 sb guy in the majors."
ehhh....minor league steal totals aren't generally that indicative of whether a guy will or won't steal bags in the majors. a LOT of guys get steals in the minors. the can't in the majors because: 1) they lose speed (as Tabata probably will, considering every report has him fattening up fast, as you'd expect from his body type), or 2) they either lack the pitch-reading skills or the pure speed to do it in the majors, but are able to get away with half the equation against poorer minor league competition.
i haven't read many projections that say Tabata will steal a lot of bags in the majors. he seems to me to fit BOTH categories of "future non-basestealers," and his total of 15 steals last year in low-A ball isn't even slightly impressive. i'd need evidence to the contrary saying he WILL steal bases if i were going to believe that.
by bleedjaxblue on Jul 18, 2007 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
pitchers peaking at 22-23
you wanted some star pitchers who had their best seasons at 23? okay, here are some i came up with off the top of my head.
matt morris had his best ERA at 23, then blew out his arm. he was overall just as good at 22-23 as he was during his "prime" of 26-27 when he came back and won 39 games in those two seasons.
zito won his cy at age 24. he was great from 22-24, very good at 25, and has been slightly above-average since.
mulder was a bit later--his peak was from 23 to 25. he declined quite a bit from 26-27, then got hurt.
oswalt has been a stud every single year, but his best K rate, ERA, and WHIP are from his rookie season at age 23.
mike mussina has been very good forever, but when he was 23 he pitched 241 innings with a 2.54 ERA. both are still career-bests. the only other time he was below 3.00 was his rookie season at age 22.
i should say
alright....not "uncommon," sure
of course, i can come up with examples of hitters who "peaked" at 22-23 too. some examples off the top of my head of people from the last two decades who peaked younger than average: Ben Grieve (22), Adam Dunn (24), Eric Chavez (23), Pat Listach (24), Raul Mondesi (23-26), Adrian Beltre (25), Hank Blalock (22). as you agree, this doesn't mean hitters don't peak at 27-28, it just means there are exceptions to the rule. i happen to AGREE that it's more LIKELY a pitcher will than a hitter will, but it's certainly not GENERALLY true of pitchers, either (and it's also true that more pitchers peak at OLDER ages) (i apologize for the casejud-esque capitalization).
anyway, as for your list of pitchers, i did pretty clearly say "pitchers without injuries," and you gave me a list that included Matt Morris and Mark Mulder (both of whom you even discuss their serious injuries), along with Barry Zito (who I will never believe hasn't been pitching through minor injuries for the past 5 years given the inexplicable but quite significant decline in his fastball velocity). maybe where i was being "unreasonable" was to expect a list of pitchers who had a fairly clean bill of health? i admit that this limits the list of players you can use, but i think it's necessary (and i think there have been enough pitchers historically who've been healthy to make the data significant). otherwise, the data doesn't mean anything at all -- it says literally NOTHING about how close Deolis Guerra is to reaching his peak should he stay healthy and how close in age he is to being at his peak (which are the questions you want answered).
i'm assuming you're not actually trying to defend the statement "the plurality of pitchers who remain healthy experience their most productive years around 22 or 23," because i will continue to say that that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. if you really want to argue that, i have plenty to say. but i don't think you're actually defending that.
meanwhile, re-reading what Nate Silver said, it seems like he was just saying "COULD BE a peak" -- more like, "as opposed to Phil Hughes, who, at 20, COULDN'T be" -- not "MOST PITCHERS PEAK," and this was just a horrible translation/bastardization for his own purposes by bmxrider. there are four other possibilities that I can think of for why Nate Silver would have typed that. but one of those possibilities is NOT that "pitchers DO tend to peak from 22-23," because that is ludicrous. just hogwash.
by bleedjaxblue on Jul 18, 2007 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
"unreasonable"
morris is a good example even though he got hurt, because after he made it all the way back from his injury and was awesome for a couple years, his ERA was still not as good as it had been at 22-23. mulder, as i pointed out, declined and then got hurt. zito's velocity decline isn't inexplicable at all--pitchers lose something off their fastball as they age from 23 to 27 in general. (maybe zito has lost more than most, but he wasn't a hard thrower to begin with.)
i honestly haven't seen a satisfactory study of when pitchers really do peak. but there is obviously a lot more variance than with hitters (only in part due to injuries), so the one thing i am pretty sure of is that pitchers who are 22 or 23 are not still "projectable" in the same way that hitters are. it's almost never a good bet that they'll get any better. obviously some of them do and some don't; i don't know whether more do than don't.
a few responses
I don't think you can make a list that includes pitchers who suffered injuries during any developmental or potentially "prime" portion of their carer. If you're going to do a study of this -- that is, "developmentally speaking, when is the human body most primed to pitch effectively against big leaguers" -- it has to be limited to purely healthy individuals, or else the data is too suspect.
I apologize for saying "none," because the number is more than zero. I was exaggerrating to make the point -- that he should think about what he's saying and try to generate a list of non-injured pitchers who had this peak.
-------------------------------
"it's almost never a good bet that they'll get any better. obviously some of them do and some don't; i don't know whether more do than don't."
Some do, some don't -- sure. Same for hitters. And pitchers follow less of a projectable curve. But......it's not as different as you're pretending it is now.
See if you agree with these statements:
- The majority of pitchers currently on big league rosters were still in the minor leagues (or just graduating) when they turned 22-23.
- A total rough estimate here, but in the neighborhood of 4 out of 5 big league starters in 25 or older.
- When a 23-year-old pitcher is putting up good stats in double-A, we call him "a prospect." When a 24-year-old pitcher is doing the same, we question whether he's too old for the league.
- Again, a not-completely-quantified statement, but almost every winner of the Cy Young Award has been by a pitcher who is over 23, and very few of the repeat winners won their first Award at 23 or younger.
Barring injuries, though, I am quite confident that the average pitcher in the big leagues improves upon his 23-year-old season. Or do you want me to make a list of the 100 active pitchers who have had their respective peaks at 25 or later?
--------------
As I said, ARL is less important for pitchers than hitters, but, when I see someone beat full-season professional hitters at 17, that means something special is going on -- it's not about PROJECTION, it's just a sign that the kid is exceptional.
by bleedjaxblue on Jul 18, 2007 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
no
i don't want you to do any of that. all i want is a decent study of when pitchers peak. it doesn't have to be done by you. look, you might be right--i really don't know. that's why i want to see the study.
i don't know if i agree with #1. i haven't seen the data.
your estimate in #2 looks high to me, but i haven't seen the data.
i disagree with #3, although i would agree if you used the low minors instead of AA.
#4 seems irrelevant to me. or if not exactly irrelevant, then certainly not 100% relevant. the idea is to see what is the peak age for pitchers in general, not just pitchers who are exceptional enough to win a cy at some point in their careers. and frankly, the recent history of the cy youngs is so loaded with repeat appearances by clemens, johnson, and maddux that those three guys would significantly affect the numbers. (and even clemens, an outlier on the side of late peaks if there ever was one, won his first cy at age 23.)
fair enough
Anyway, I'm quite surprised you don't agree with #1. My estimate might have been a little high for #2, especially if you count spot starters, but I was trying not to, which I don't think is unreasonable given what we're trying to figure out. I can respect disagreeing with #3 -- though I think most of the time the question at least comes up, "Is he too old?" To make this less abstract, it HAS been brought up for 24-year-old Alan Horne multiple times on this board; I don't think you can name any 23-year-olds in double-A who it's even been mentioned for (though I'm open to examples if you have them).
As for #4, it's NOT a direct proof for the very reasons you mention -- the award goes to THE single best pitcher, which will tend to be the same guys (though not as much historically). It doesn't say whether individual players are at their peaks, since Jeff Suppan's peak is still miles below Johan Santana's floor.
However, you would expect a somewhat significant proportion of the best pitcher's seasons to come from the age when pitchers are "best," no? And, furthermore, when you DO get repeat winners (e.g., Maddux, Unit, Clemens, Carlton, etc.), you'd expect them to have ALSO won the award when they WERE in their peak, right? Because, presumably, they would have been even better then. Since neither of these things are the case when we make "23" our hypothetical peak, it seems to me like more indirect evidence that 23 isn't the age when pitchers are at their best. Certainly not proof on it's own, and certainly flawed in some ways, but it's just something else to think about.
by bleedjaxblue on Jul 18, 2007 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
and while his #'s are good
by NYYLover1000 on Jul 17, 2007 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Tabata = 18
true, right now....
I happen to think 8 months at that age is significant (whereas, at age 23, for instance, it wouldn't matter). It adds considerably to the rarity of a player being able to have a high level of performance at advanced levels, and I believe players who do have HUGE increases in their likelihood of ultimate success.
by bleedjaxblue on Jul 17, 2007 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions
K/9
When you don't know anything about a guy, when you have no scouting available, it's nice to see a high k/9, because it means he probably has good stuff to get alot of swings and misses. But, if a guy has a K/9 of around 9 in the minors, it probably also means he has some work to do as far as learning how to pitch. More often than not, it means he's not going to get away with the same approach at higher levels.
Now, if a K/9 is down around 4.0, then I start to question whether a guy has the stuff. But a K/9 of 6-7 is about what you expect from a good big league pitcher. If you look at the minor league numbers of Chris Young, Dan Haren or Ben Sheets, you'll see plenty of K/9s around 7. On the other hand, if you look at Jake Peavey or Josh Beckett, you'll see dominant K/9s. But not every guy with a high k rate in the minors has the stuff of a Peavy or Beckett. The guys that do, the scouts will probably notice.
So I don't agree with using k/9 as a substitute for scouting. A guy like Guerra, I can understand if his stuff has taken a big step forward this year, maybe there being some skepticism about initial reports, especially from unnamed scouts. So it's understandable why people here would rank him well below where BA put him. BA simply has more access to the latest scouting. But I really don't understand why some were so concerned about Adenhart's k/9 being around 6, especially when he's getting good results. There's plenty of scouting available on Adenhart. He's been back from TJ surgery for awhile now.
In both cases, you have three plus pitches, and pretty good command. Guerra is still less polished than Adenhart, and does have to improve his consistency with the curve, and both guys will have adjustments to make as they move up, but it doesn't take that much projection to see a good future big league SP there.
not in high A
by bmxstreetrider86 on Jul 17, 2007 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
He has given up 8 homers as well in 62 innings which means guys are having pretty solid contact. As a team St. Lucie has a K/9 of 6.7 so he is barely above the team average. The league K/9 is 7.2 so he is pretty much exactly average in strikeouts for the FSL.
Yes the command is nice, the GB/FB is nice, but the K's, HR, and ERA are not that nice. Ive watched FSL games and they cant hit a good change so if Guerra really has that great change then he must have trouble locating it or something.
Add in that his BABIP is only .274 so he his hit prevention is a little lucky too.
Lastly in June and July Guerra has allowed an OPS of .858 and .832 respectively so the league has been figuring him out recently.
Promising pitcher, yes, but barely a top 50 prospect IMHO
by Kanst42 on Jul 17, 2007 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Lucky?
As for the change, it's just nasty. But there's no reason for them to have him throwing alot of them. It's better for his development to throw more fastballs. And if he had trouble locating the ball, he'd have a BB9 of higher than 2.17.
The slider has been in development this year. It's a plus pitch now at times. He does need to improve his consistency with it, and his location. But, when the scouting is saying a 6' 5", 200lb 18 year old kid is touching the mid 90's, now throwing three plus pitches, and now showing above average command, I think it's foolish to believe otherwise because the SO9 is 7.00 rather than 8.00.
by acerimusdux on Jul 17, 2007 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
First
As for his walks, I never said he had bad command, I am questioning his control (may have switched them) BB/9 just tells you how good he is at getting pitches in the strikezone, the low K rate indicates to me that if his pitchers are really all plus that he probably is having trouble putting them where he wants them.
As for BABIP, it depends on whether you think pitchers have control over it or not. But in High A the fields suck and there are some shaky fielder so to put up a .274 he is either lucky or getting ALOT of weak contact, I tend to think lucky is more likely
by Kanst42 on Jul 17, 2007 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Not fair
Yes you are correct that Young was a guy with a mediocre K rate at High A but he was also dominant in every other aspect
by Kanst42 on Jul 17, 2007 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions
No...
He was also 24. Look at his line at AA that year. Guerra's line at A+ at 18 is very similar to that (but slightly better).
RA9 H9 BB9 SO9
4.23 9.00 2.39 6.94 - Young AA age 24
4.65 8.13 2.18 7.11 - Guerra A+ age 18
4.21 8.80 1.86 8.02 - Haren A+ age 21
Does a 7.11 SO9 vs. an 8.02 SO9 make that big a difference? The kid is just learning how to pitch.
by acerimusdux on Jul 17, 2007 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
he's learning to pitch
there are plenty of young pitchers who are raw, and have well above average K-rates
hell phil hughes struck out 10+/9 in the EL at the age of 19,
rite now he has had mediocre K/9 rates, whether that will improve or not will have little to do with how much he knows how to pitch
by bmxstreetrider86 on Jul 17, 2007 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Hughes...
And I never said there weren't guys like Hughes either. I already mentioned Peavy and Beckett as examples of that type of guy, so I'm not sure how bringing Hughes into it changes that argument.
Finally, one key element you're missing about young pitchers is that velocity increases typically come around ages 17-19. Once guys are 20 years old, you typically aren't going to see more velocity. Guerra is a very projectible 6' 5" kid with a big frame who has just been growing into his body and has been seeing velocity increase. What scouts are saying is that when all is said and done he could easily be sitting in the mid 90's.
This is what I mean by learning; a year ago he had an average fastball and below average breaking ball. He's just learning to use those new found plus pitches. And learning how to get strikeouts with them isn't a top priority.
If you want to compare to Tabata, then compare his projection. He's under 5' 11" and under 170 lbs. He's never been projected to have above average power to begin with. Meanwhile, he's hitting .310, but only 5.6% of those hits have been for extra bases. It's doubtful at this point whether he would stick as a centerfielder in MLB, and the Yankees have him playing a corner. If the power doesn't improve, he doesn't even make it as a starter in a corner OF spot.
Guerra, meanwhile, with no projection, would still profile at this point as a #2-#3 starter, just not as an "ace". And some of those guys with #2 "stuff" turn out to be pretty good pitchers (Haren, Young).
-1
Wrong
As for Guerra, the change is a plus MLB pitch now without any projection. The sinker is a plus MLB pitch now in the low 90's. It's not a big strikeout pitch, but it's inducing alot of soft groundballs. The breaking ball is a plus pitch right now at times, just inconsistent.
Not that many guys completely fail with three plus pitches and an ability to throw strikes. And once you have the scouting, knowing the k rate doesn't add much. At that point, the guys with the high k rate are just as likely to fail as the guys without the high k rate.
And, I'm saying with no improvement in his current stuff. I'm not saying he doesn't need to continue to learn how to use it; that would be the equivalent of saying you could throw him into the majors now which is not what I meant. Even with no improvement in his current stuff, his k-rate would continue to improve. Keep in mind, he had an SO9 of 5.48 for the month of April, and 8.36 since then.
Response
Sure he COULD
Response
In short, David Price is one awesome, awesome prospect.
He's good
Response
Price has been proving himself just fine. He's pitched 3 high quality years of college ball, which for some reason continues to be regarded as a statistical vacuum. It's not like he's been sitting on his ass eating Cheetos for the last 3 years - he's a very developed pitcher who could step into a competitive pro atmosphere and thrive immediately.
The "he needs to prove himself" argument is just plain silly. People tried to use it on Andrew Miller and Tim Lincecum last year, ignoring that they A) had pitched extremely successful against college competition for just as long if not longer than many pro prospects and B) had the stuff and present ability to succeed against good pro competition immediately. I wouldn't dream of pretending that pro statistical data isn't worthwhile - in fact, doing so would undermine my own contention that college performance is important - but you have to ask yourself, "would this guy succeed if he were playing at such-and-such a level?" It's the same tactic you have to apply when an organization chooses to take a conservative approach when it comes to promoting a prospect through the minor league system.
Like I asked above -
Response
Of course, that's a strictly statistical approach to prospect evaluation, of which I am not an advocate.
That's a pretty ballsy claim
Response
To compare him to Joba . . .their fastballs probably grade out similarly after you account for the righty/lefty difference, perhaps a slight edge to Joba. Price's slider is a better pitch, although Joba's is a very good offering as well. I've heard good things about Joba's change lately so I'd put it at even there. Price projects to have better control, particularly at the upper levels of competiton where command of secondary pitchers is essential to success. Durability isn't an issue for me . . .I could see Joba's lack of conditioning lending itself to some abbeviated seasons but I don't believe it'll impact his ability to pitch at a high level.
Overall, I'd say both pitchers look like great prospects, as you might expect from a couple of A/A- guys. Price is just a little better all around for me though.
Well...
Say the league folded and all of these guys went into a draft to start a new league. Knowing what we know at this point in time, how many GM's do you see drafting Price ahead of these guys? I could see Maybin and McGee slipping below him, but I personally would be surprised if any one else in the top 9 did.
Response
Just going through the pitchers, the only one I'd take over Price right now is Buchholz, although even that is a pretty close one. The only other guy in the discussion would be Kershaw, who isn't nearly as refined as Price.
If you added in the batters, I'd take Upton and maybe Longoria over Price as well. This is pretty close to my actual feelings, although if I revert to strict prospect ranking rather than your scenario then I definitely take Longoria over Price and Jay Bruce enters the conversation as well. So this would put Price anywhere from 4-6.
Good points
List
I could see
by cmaff05 on Jul 17, 2007 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Its not all about produciton
link
Where has it been said that Guerra's breaking ball is a plus pitch.
It was pretty average in the Future's Game.
by cmaff05 on Jul 17, 2007 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Woooo!!!!!
Copied and pasted.
Adenhart
Well
by Bowser on Jul 17, 2007 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not the biggest stickler when it comes to this
Response
Still way too high for Adam Jones. I don't see him drawing enough walks or hitting for quite enough power to make up for his lack of contact. He'll play good defense for at least the first part of his career which will make him a useful player, but I can't see him becoming a star.
The McGee placement just kind of made me chuckle. Not that he doesn't have the potential to be that kind of prospect . . .he's just not that kind of prospect right now.
Although I'm not worried about McCutchen's statistical struggles this year, I just don't see him as any more than a potential solid regular CF. That's a good player but . . .#14?
Between what Goldstein said of Adam Miller in his own review and his absence here, something is up. I've mentioned before that I thought Miller was more of a polished guy (albeit with power stuff) than an upside guy . . .perhaps the scouts have moved towards a similar conclusion?
Staying on the subject of Indians, Lofgren's placement is killing me. They put a future 3-4 starter at #23? Ahead of Gio Gonzalez, who's the same age, has similar velocity and a far better breaking ball, and is putting up vastly superior performance at the same level?
A very, very bleh list. And yes, there's other stuff I don't like.
Thoughts on Miller and Lofgren!
If I may ask, what review of Goldstein are you referring to? Do you have a link?
Regarding Miller, by "upside guy," do you mean he's not going to gain any more velocity? By "polished guy," do you mean he has no more projection and that he has good control, but not blow-away stuff? Is Hurley or Adenhart any more of an "upside guy" than Miller - why are they at #19 and #20, respectively, on this list, then? Miller is "only" throwing mid- to upper-90s with his fastball, has a devastating slider, has a ML-average changeup, and has a nice 2-seamer. That arsenal is at least as good as Hurley's and Adenhart's, if not better. Granted, those two are younger, so they still have some projection left, but is their stuff "that" good where they can be considered "upside guys" instead of "projection guys"? Why do you think that a guy with power stuff and good command like Miller doesn't deserve a place on the Top 25 when he's been in that Top 25 after 2004 and after 2006, and wasn't on there after 2005 only because they didn't know how his elbow injury would affect him long-term? If it's the injury concern, that's one thing, but implying that he doesn't have enough "stuff" to blow hitters away and make this list seems incorrect to me - he struck out 9.2/9 IP at AA last year, and 9.7/9 IP at AA in the second half when his fastball velocity returned to his pre-elbow injury level and his slider regained the bite it had on it before his elbow injury, as well as having a more developed changeup and 2-seamer, which is now part of his arsenal. In fact, the development of his changeup was a major reason why his K rate spiked in the second half - I clearly remember reading that in one of the Indians.com articles from last year.
Maybe BA was concerned about his finger injury and wanted to see him perform well again before putting him back on the list?
If what you are saying about Miller being more of a "polished guy" than an "upside guy," have they come to the same conclusion about Hughes as well - why isn't he on this list? He certainly still has rookie-eligible status, and Bailey has thrown more IP than Hughes, yet he's on this list, so Hughes is certainly still eligible. Or was it the fact that Hughes has been out of action like Miller has that prevented him from making this list as well?
Maybe the omission of Hughes and Miller were both oversights for all we know; they've both been on this list before, and neither Hughes' hamstring injury, nor Miller's finger injury is supposed to have any lingering long-term effects, nor be damaging to their careers at this point, so who knows why both of them were left off when Bailey wasn't. The only ones who can answer why Hughes and Miller are both not on this list with any certainty is BA themselves.
As for Lofgren, I suspect like me and some others, they probably see him as more of a #2-#3 guy than a #3-#4 guy - a small difference in number, but they must think he has a better chance to be a frontline starter than you think so. And while he didn't blow anyone away with his velocity in the Futures Game (hitting 93, I think, with his fastball,) I've read he can hit 96-97 MPH on the gun. In addition, they did mention that his breaking stuff did look advanced and was enough to strike out a Futures hitter, so I don't think Lofgren is totally out of place at #23 - disputable, but not totally erroneous as you are implying. As was mentioned, it's not a perfect list, but then again, what list is perfect?
I also suspect that they might have held Gonzalez's unimpressive showing at AA in 2006 against him, whereas Lofgren was only at High-A last year; that might be why they were willing to put Lofgren a bit higher than Gonzalez - Gonzalez had already had AA experience, so he should be expected to do a bit better. Also, as I mentioned above, Lofgren's breaking stuff is better than you're giving him credit for; his main problem is having consistent command of it, not so much that his curveball and changeup are not quality breaking pitches in their own right. Also, I don't know if Lofgren's third pitch might be further along than Gio's third pitch or not, but I know Lofgren has made progress with both his curveball and changeup, whereas I'm not sure what Gio's 3rd pitch is or how far along he is with it.
I'm not saying that taking his unimpressive performance at AA in 2006 was a fair way to evaluate Gonzalez, since he was young for AA, but just like Asdrubal Cabrera not making their Indians' Top 10 Prospect List this past offseason due to his poor performance at AAA, despite his only being 20 and skipping AA entirely, I suspect that might have been what differentiated Lofgren and Gonzalez and why Lofgren was put ahead of him. Even so, it's only a difference of one spot - in their opinion, it seems that they see both of them with the same type of ceiling, whether that's #2-#3 or #3-#4.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
Response
As for Hurley and Adenhart compared to Miller . . .are you asking for my opinion on this one or BA's opinion? If you want the latter you've already gotten that - BA grades very heavily on upside and potential. They also aren't terribly harsh on downgrading prospects due to injury unless the player has acquired a serious scouting consensus of being injury-prone. I doubt the finger is a real issue, to be honest, especially as scouts got to see Miller plenty of times this year before that happened.
When I refer to Miller as being a better prospect for his polish than his upside, I'd probably go with your second suggestion. I should emphasize, of course, that once again this is not necessarily my opinion but the opinion of the scouts that BA talked to. I often disagree with their assessments. Personally I think they're being a little harsh on Miller but at the same time they may be on to something.
If you'd like more information on why Miller's stock is apparently down, then I would strongly urge you to e-mail either the BA guys or Kevin Goldstein and inquire directly. If you get a response I doubt they'll be stingy with the information you're seeking.
Hughes definitely wasn't an omission. They didn't put players in the majors on the list, and Hughes is on the major league DL.
Gio's third pitch is a changeup, and I've heard he's made very good progress with it this year. It should be noted that Gonzalez WAS 20 last year and still struck out more guys per 9 innings than Lofgren is this year. I wouldn't exactly call it unimpressive performance.
Asked about Miller
Jim Callis: (2:08 PM ET ) No, he was eligible and he was discussed. He'd be in the next group of 5-10 guys, but his injury status ultimately kept him off.
****
So the injury issues were the big knock on him
by Kanst42 on Jul 18, 2007 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Response
I should note, if you have a complaint about their assessment, take it up with BA. They're the ones talking to the scouts, putting the information together, and then coming to their own conclusions on it. It's not necessarily representative of my own feelings, and I have little interest in defending them. I'm sure they could elaborate on their process, but then again they've pretty much said all they needed to about how they feel based on Miller's placement.
No, I figured that was probably the reason he
Hello mrkupe,
I didn't mean to imply that the rankings were yours - sorry if I led you to that conclusion. No, my main disagreement with you is what I stated above; I suspected the reason why Miller was left off was more due to his recent finger injury. I suspect that Hughes' hamstring injury is the main reason he was left off this list as well, since he had to be eligible because Bailey made the list, and I'm pretty sure Bailey has thrown more ML innings than Hughes has.
I just read your first reply (sorry - I missed it earlier); therefore, Bailey is only eligible for this list because he's back in the Minors; he wouldn't have been eligible if he had been left on Cincinnati's roster? That seems a bit odd - Bailey has thrown more ML IP than Hughes; why should Bailey be eligible for this list just because he's back in the Minors and Hughes isn't because he's on the ML's disabled list? If you go by IP, Bailey is closer to losing his rookie status than Hughes is, so essentially, I'm asking if you know for sure that that was the reason Hughes was left off this list, or if BA is also concerned with his injury status and upside? Just asking.
I have no disagreement with him being left off this list; Miller's injuries are a bit of a concern, but at least this one has to deal with his finger, not his elbow or shoulder, so I suspect he'll be fine long-term - he just needs time to overcome that one-month layoff when he was really starting to excel at AAA. I think he can and will, provided he remains healthy, of course.
Thanks Kanst42 for providing that excerpt from Callis' chat - greatly appreciated! :-)
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Response
And no, I cannot verify this, but there's no reason why he would fall off this list. If he were eligible I think Hughes would certainly be in the top 5, and I'd have him higher than that. His stuff looked very good this year, even when facing major league competition. He still projects as a frontline starter.
Personally I'm not very high on Adenhart at all. Hurley has a pretty good arm with a couple of nice pitches. As for whether or not they have been more "impressive" than Miller, however, that would again be something not to take up with me. It seems pretty clear that regardless of the injury thing or the statistics, the scouts are telling BA that Adenhart and Hurley are at least slightly more "impressive" looking than Miller at this point. Hell, Adenhart is even more of an injury risk than Miller, and as you noted he isn't putting up the statline that Miller is, even against inferior competition. That one basically comes down to the scouting consensus, and it would appear that it goes to Adenhart.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
Thanks for the info. - greatly appreciated! :-)
Regarding Gio's performance!
I didn't mean to say that Gio's performance was unimpressive - I meant to say that his performance probably was held against him a bit in his ranking his year, just because he had AA experience, whereas Lofgren didn't. Plus, Gonzalez's BB rate and HR rate were unimpressive last year (4.71 BB/9 IP and 1.40 HR/9 IP respectively.) I agree that his K rate was quite good, and his H/9 IP rate wasn't bad either, but I suspect that the scouts still put Lofgren higher because it's his first time at AA, whereas this is Gio's second time, so they probably felt that unless Gio was really excelling both in performance and in projection over Lofgren that Lofgren would rank higher.
That's not to say Gio hasn't been impressive this year; he has, but for whatever reason, much like with their analysis of Miller, they felt Lofgren should be put ahead of Gonzalez.
By the way, thanks for the advice on contacting BA or Goldstein for more info. on Miller - I may do that. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
+1 on Adam Jones.
by TheCouga on Jul 18, 2007 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Could be
Woo-Hoo
by T for Jose Tabatha on Jul 17, 2007 7:44 PM EDT reply actions
Tabata not even honorable mention
by FrazierFan on Jul 17, 2007 8:08 PM EDT reply actions
LOL
by Bowser on Jul 17, 2007 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Ian Kennedy
I'm writing a letter!
jk
by LipstickOnDipstick on Jul 17, 2007 9:33 PM EDT reply actions
More Guerra...
Let's see how the kid finishes the season, which might not be too far away no matter how well he does. He's at 62 innings after being shut down for a month, which is when his real struggles began. One of the best things about the situation is that the Mets have full control over his workload, not some HS or College coach. I'd put his over/under around 100-125 innings, with 125 probably pushing it quite a bit...
Joba
McGee is way to high for my liking too. I'd like to see him develop his offspeed pitches more before I rate him that high.
Guerra & Tabata
- Guerra & his new velocity, improved breaking pitches, blah blah. Seems like BS to me. Maybe he hits a little higher velocity. But from everything I have heard EXCEPT for the one article he did't really jump that much in velocity or stuff. Some jump. But not what was hyped.
- Tabata. My biggest thing is everyone uses age. I'm not sure Tabata hasn't fully physically matured. If this is the case he won't add any more physical strength. So his power will only improve through approach and skill. This is my problem with Melky.
response
On what basis can you possibly say something like? How do you have the slightest idea of whether he's physically matured or not? I'm not going to argue that he has or hasnt, but i think that was kind of a silly statement because the fact is, no body knows.
by nyybaseball99 on Jul 18, 2007 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions
silly?
Let's see:
the scouts believe he has. why? most times it's because they know the players family and have a good idea of what the body size will become. It's not 100%. But it's a decent way of knowing.
I could say "he's a latin player and they typically mature earlier and usually have a smaller frame". Well, that may work in a vacuum but certainly doesn't fit individuals. Nah. I listen to what scouts say. AND He has mostly been filling out by thickening his lower half (not a bad thing). Guys that are about to go through a growth spurt typically thin out before growing. Then they fill in. Shoot, ask any parent. They can see this with kids. Tabata is doing the filling in phase. It's possible he has a growth spurt. But it's so much more likely that he has physically matured.
So if you want to call this silly or stupid or wrong, whatever. That's my reasoning and my guess/opinion.
i'd say
you could just as soon say he'll grow to be 6'6 and 250 pounds.
proof
and does ANYONE have any "proof" for how they rank someone? Or "proof" for where we predict anything?
Is it a guess? Sure. But an educated one.
Is it possible Tabata grows to 6'6"? Sure. It's possible he becomes a LHP pitcher also. I sure won't be predicting that.
scouts =! doctors
he's got thick legs because he became a fat ass and loves fast food (said so in an interview a year or so ago)...which is why they benched him for a few games
him being a fat ass could certainly deter from his prospect status, but thats a whole different arguement
by nyybaseball99 on Jul 18, 2007 7:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Old player skills?
I mean his plate discipline and ability to hit for
Everyone is knocking me because I'm making some terrible prediction that he will NOT in fact gain 6 inches in height and become a power threat.
I think the people who feel he will magically gain this height/weight/strength are on glue. It's possible. I just don't think it's that projectable.
Who said height
He has slugged .420+ the last two months so I think he may be starting to come around.
by Kanst42 on Jul 18, 2007 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions
hughes
Why then is Bailey on this list?
I mentioned this to mrkupe above; just curious, but why is Bailey eligible for this list when he has more ML IP than Hughes? Bailey is closer to losing his rookie status than Hughes is, so why should Bailey be included on this list and not Hughes? If Bailey had been left in Cincinnati's starting rotation over the ASB and was still up with them, that would mean that Bailey wouldn't have been on this list?
That seems a bit odd to me. Are they presuming that Bailey won't lose his eligibility by the end of this year, even though he's closer than Hughes to doing so?
I'm not saying it's wrong - just seems a bit odd to me, that's all, and just my voicing my 2 cents about it. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
Hughes is not a rookie
Thanks - I was not aware of that - that makes
np
ps: everyone down on Miller will be eating crow next year.
Do you remember how everyone was down on BJ Upton and saying he was a bum? Now he is looking like a star :)
I too think Miller will rebound; he's young
And yes, Upton is looking like a stud (and while Justin is looking pretty good in his own right at AA, I'm referring to BJ being the stud. :-)
Just my 2 cents.
Take care and have a great day!
simply
Sure they could have used a different rule for list eligibility, but they didn't.
for example
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
