Top 50 Hitting Prospects from 2006: In Review
by John Sickels on Jan 26, 2026 2:00 PM EST
Email
PrintTop 50 Hitting Prospects from 2006 in Review
Every year about this time, I go back and review my Top Prospect Lists from five years previous, since it takes at least that long to know how a list turned out. You can find a January 2010 review of the 2005 list here.
So let's get in the Wayback Machine and see how my Top 50 Hitting list from 2006 looks in 2011. The pitching list will follow tomorrow.
1) Delmon Young, OF, Tampa Bay Rays: Career .292/.325/.435 hitter, had his best season in 2010 with a 121 OPS+. Still just 25 years old. WAR hates him, career value of -1.0.
2) Jeremy Hermida, OF, Florida Marlins: Other than a very good year in 2007, he's been very disappointing, career mark .259/.335/.417, 97 OPS+. Career WAR of 3.1. Hermida has had a better career than Delmon? Really?
3) Ryan Zimmerman, 3B, Washington Nationals: .288/.355/.484, career OPS+ 121, Gold glove defense. Career WAR 17.5.
4) Brandon Wood, SS, Los Angeles Angels: Looks like a huge bust at this point, .169/.198/.260 in 450 at-bats over four seasons. Was handled badly by the Angels, but muffed his opportunity when it finally came. Bad strike zone judgment and loss of confidence key factors.
5) Andy Marte, 3B, Boston Red Sox: Another bust, .218/.277/.358 in 838 at-bats over six seasons. Will show flashes but just never puts everything together.
6) Carlos Quentin, OF, Arizona Diamondbacks: Career .251/.347/.488, 114 OPS+. Doesn't hit for average and prone to injuries, but draws walks and has good power. Career 5.6 WAR.
7) Alex Gordon, 3B, Kansas City Royals: Career .244/.328/.405, 95 OPS+. Aside from a decent sophomore season in 2008, he's been very disappointing. Injuries have been an issue but even when healthy he hasn't hit as well as anticipated. Not a complete lost cause yet, but likely needs a change of scenery. Career WAR 4.0.
8) Stephen Drew, SS, Arizona Diamondbacks: .272/.332/.448, 99 OPS+, though 113 last year. A solid player. Career WAR 8.9.
9) Prince Fielder, 1B, Milwaukee Brewers: .279/.385/.535, 139 OPS+. An outstanding slugger. Career WAR 15.8.
10) Howie Kendrick, 2B, Los Angeles Angels: .295/.327/.425, 99 OPS+. Can hit for average, slowed by injuries earlier in his career. Career WAR 9.6.
11) Chris Young, OF, Arizona Diamondbacks: .241/.316/.441, 92 OPS+, good power, draws walks, strikes out a lot and won't hit for average, strong defense. Career WAR 4.9.
12) Jarrod Saltalamacchia, C, Atlanta Braves: Career .248/.315/.386, 82 OPS+. Bad stagnated, as happens with many catchers, injuries, etc. Career WAR 0.4.
13) Joel Guzman, SS-OF, Los Angeles Dodgers: .232/.306/.321 in 24 major league games. Has settled in as a minor league slugger, with poor strike zone judgment his main problem. Never lived up to the tools that scouts saw when he was young.
14) Justin Upton, SS, Arizona Diamondbacks: He ranked here without having played professionally to that point, being drafted in '05. .272/.352/.471, 112 OPS+ so far in the majors. Still just 23. Career WAR 8.4.
15) Ian Stewart, 3B, Colorado Rockies: .245/.332/.451, 96 OPS+ in the majors. Has pop, doesn't hit for average, solid glove at third base. Career WAR 2.5.
16) Nick Markakis, OF, Baltimore Orioles: .298/.368/.463, 118 OPS+, power production has declined since his debut but gets on base. Career WAR 18.3.
17) Lastings Milledge, OF, New York Mets: .269/.328/.394, 91 OPS+. Flashes talent but erratic, hasn't lived up to his physical tools. Career WAR -2.0.
18) Daric Barton, 1B, Oakland Athletics: .260/.369/.399, OPS+ 109, seems to be gradually improving each year. Very strong defense. Career WAR 6.7.
19) Jeff Clement, C, Seattle Mariners: Another 2005 draftee who made his debut high on the list. .223/.281/.383 in 363 at-bats over three seasons. Has power, doesn't control zone, couldn't stay at catcher. Career WAR -1.2.
20) Conor Jackson, 1B, Arizona Diamondbacks: .276/.358/.419, 98 OPS+. An above average hitter 2006 through 2008, then crippled by injuries. Career WAR 3.1.
21) Andy LaRoche, 3B, Los Angeles Dodgers: .224/.304/.338, 71 OPS+. Never got untracked in LA, injuries an issue, does have a good glove at third but quite disappointing overall. Career WAR -0.4.
22) Ryan Braun, 3B, Milwaukee Brewers: .307/.364/.554, 140 OPS+. 2005 draft pick made his debut on the list here. An outstanding hitter. Career WAR 14.5.
23) Kendry Morales, 1B, Los Angeles Angels: .284/.336/.502, 118 OPS+. Excellent season in 2009 but limited by injuries in '10. Career WAR 4.4.
24) Russ Martin, C, Los Angeles Dodgers: .272/.365/.396, 101 OPS+. Above-average hitter 2006-2008 but has slipped the last two seasons. Career WAR 12.7.
25) Felix Pie, OF, Chicago Cubs: .255/.305/.394, OPS+ 82. Hasn't lived up to his physical tools, lack of patience an issue. Career WAR 2.7.
26) Troy Tulowitzki, SS, Colorado Rockies: Another 2005 draft pick, .290/.362/.495, 114 OPS+, gold glove defense, hard to find a better overall player. Career WAR 18.6.
27) Adam Jones, OF, Seattle Mariners: .274/.319/.427, 97 OPS+, but 106 OPS+ over the last two seasons despite weak discipline. Very strong with the glove. Career WAR 7.7.
28) Erick Aybar, SS, Los Angeles Angels: .274/.318/.365, 82 OPS+. Good speed, but most of offense lies in his batting average. Glove decent. Career WAR 4.4.
29) Billy Butler, OF, Kansas City Royals: .299/.359/.457, 118 OPS+, but production has escalated last two years, continues to steadily improve. Career WAR 5.0.
30) Blake DeWitt, 3B, Los Angeles Dodgers: .259/.335/.378, OPS+ 91. Nothing special either offensively or defensively, but will probably be around a long time. 3.1 career WAR.
31) Carlos Gonzalez, OF, Arizona Diamondbacks: .299/.344/.519, OPS 119+, broke out in 2010. Tools player who made good. 7.7 career WAR.
32) Marcus Sanders, 2B, San Francisco Giants: Never reached the majors, injuries and offensive collapse.
33) George Kottaras, C, San Diego Padres: .213/.305/.394, 85 OPS+, has some pop and can draw a walk but can't hit for average at all. Career WAR 0.2.
34) Kevin Melillo, 2B, Oakland Athletics: Got one at-bat in 2007. A decent enough Triple-A player but didn't live up to the .305/.399/.535 season (at three levels) he had in '05.
35) Hunter Pence, OF, Houston Astros: .287/.336/.481, 115 OPS+, 6.7 WAR. Steady and consistent.
36) Justin Huber, 1B, Kansas City Royals: .224/.276/.304 in 161 at-bats over five seasons. Topped out as a Triple-A slugger.
37) Eddy Martinez-Esteve, OF, San Francisco Giants: Hit .295/.383/.432 in the minors but hasn't reached the majors. Power vanished after series of shoulder injuries.
38) Neil Walker, C, Pittsburgh Pirates: .288/.343/.444, 112 OPS+ in the majors, 462 at-bats. Looked like a possible bust until 2010. Career WAR 1.0.
39) Brandon Snyder, C, Baltimore Orioles: Just 20 major league at-bats so far, but still only 24.Career .278/.342/.437 hitter in the minors, position switch to first base has robbed him of much value.
40) Jose Tabata, OF, New York Yankees: hit .299/.346/.400 with 19 steals in 2010 rookie year with the Pirates, WAR 0.8.
41) Andrew McCutchen, OF, Pittsburgh Pirates: .286/.365/.459, 120 OPS+, plenty of speed, 6.4 career WAR so far. A very good player who should just get better.
42) Dustin Pedroia, 2B, Boston Red Sox: Career .305/.369/.460 hitter, 113 OPS+, AL MVP in 2008, 17.7 career WAR. Obviously excellent.
43) Stephen Head, 1B, Cleveland Indians: 2005 draft pick looked great after signing but has never lived up to full potential. .263/.327/.429 hitter in the minors so far, now in indy ball.
44) Cody Haerther, OF, St. Louis Cardinals: hit .307/.355/.538 in 2005 but never did much after that, hampered by injuries and loss of power in Double-A.
45) Colby Rasmus, OF, St. Louis Cardinals: .263/.334/.452, 110 OPS+, much better in 2010 sophomore season. 5.7 career WAR.
46) Ryan Shealy, 1B, Colorado Rockies: .268/.331/.424, 95 OPS+, 19 homers in 545 at-bats over six seasons. Under different circumstances he might have done better.
47) Wes Bankston, 1B,Tampa Bay Rays: Hit .203/.238/.305 in 17 games in 2008. Triple-A slugger.
48) Brent Clevlen, OF, Detroit Tigers: .234/.280/.429 in 84 at-bats over four seasons. Hit decently in Triple-A but strikeout problems overrode tools and power.
49) Josh Willingham, C-1B, Florida Marlins: .265/.367/.475, OPS+ 121, 11.0 career WAR. Steady and reliable hitter.
50) Javier Herrera, OF, Oakland Athletics: Tools guy, career ruined by injuries. Career .282/.358/.468 when he's been able to play, no major league time.
There are both tools busts and stathead busts on this list. Biggest failures: Brandon Wood, Andy Marte, Joel Guzman, Lastings Milledge, Jeff Clement, Marcus Sanders. Overall I think it is a decent list. I am more suspicious of one-dimensional slugger types nowadays than I was back then.
177 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
brandon Wood, Ugh
Trout please save us
go long with extenze...i do
by angelsownredsux on Jan 26, 2026 2:09 PM EST reply actions
Last Time?
Who was the last good homegrown Angels’ hitting prospect? Kendrick? Not if you consider his pre-arrival expectations. Maybe Salmon? Lots of high rankings in there, but none have panned out.
by BNBurger on Jan 27, 2026 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
Decent List
John, be serious. This is a terrible list. It’s a generic list than anybody in your community could have put out.
I’m not saying that BA’s was better, but to categorize this as decent is really pathetic. Sorry.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
by GregJP on Jan 26, 2026 2:53 PM EST reply actions
I have to agree
The amount of busts on this list is kind of alarming.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 26, 2026 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
Alot of the players had injuries or other things that couldn't have been guessed.
Obviously, this list didn’t prove to do too well, but I am not sure any other places had lists much different then this.
by mr. maniac on Jan 26, 2026 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
wow
be sure to let us know when you publish your book. what’s more important, perhaps you should not be following this blog if you think John has such poor skills. i mean seriously, most of the busts on here were completely unpredictable. you cannot predict injuries, maybe a little for pitchers, but not for hitters. guys flame out. it HAPPENS. if you want to comment on how the list was disappointing, i’d agree with you, but what you said took a personal shot at john. that was uncalled for.
by rangersfan24 on Jan 26, 2026 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
Personal Shot
I didn’t take a personal shot at John. I just said that this list WASN’T decent. How could anybody say it was decent. I don’t know why, but it was terrible.
I would have a lot more respect for John if he had just said……“sorry guys, this list completely sucked”
Shit happens, but to say this list is decent is completely ludicrous.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
by GregJP on Jan 26, 2026 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
"wasn't decent"?
no, you said terrible, then stated anybody on this blog could have put together the same list, then you said he was “pathetic” for saying it was decent. ya, that’s taking a personal shot dude. if this were my blog your profile would have been deleted immediately. i mean honestly, what crystal ball did you have back in 2006 that you would have written the list so differently? i mean you do realize the failure rate of prospects is ridiculously high right? he didnt do anything on that list that 95% of the people on here would not have done. you could have just said that the list had an incredibly high failure rate and there would have been nothing wrong with that, but even then, there were numerous successes on this list as well. i’d have a lot more respect for you if youd show a bit more respect towards someone that works their ass off providing you with a free service. i mean, even with shitty top 50 or whatever lists that get put out, most people have the courtesy to say “decent”.
by rangersfan24 on Jan 26, 2026 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
It Was Terrible
Dude, take a look at that list. In what way is it not terrible?
Listen, I read this sight every day and have bought four of John’s books. I know that he works hard and does the best that he can.
But when he calls the above abomination decent, I have to draw the line.
Maybe it’s just the nature of the best, but if that’s the best we can do maybe it’s time to move on to predicting coin flips.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
by GregJP on Jan 26, 2026 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
You probably should have been more polite
However, I understand your response. If John is going to sell you his book based on his reputation as a knowledgeable minor league expert, you do have the right to question him on his thought process and mistakes. I am sure as someone who critiques minor league players for a living that he is secure enough to be criticized himself as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 26, 2026 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
Yes..
….and I don’t think I’m being impolite or disrespectful. I was just really annoyed by John’s use of the word “decent” I’m a teacher, and that’s not at all how I define decent when it comes to how my students perform.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
by GregJP on Jan 26, 2026 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
As a teacher, you have a rubric and a set of standards by which to grade
your students’ performance. You have not applied that same logic here when trying to asses this list’s performance.
The whole problem with the world is that fools & fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~ Bertrand Russell
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 27, 2026 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
Damn, I love your signature
I hadn’t heard that one before. Another one I like from Russell is something like “when fools do something they’re secretly ashamed of, they refer to it as policy.” I can’t remember where it came from (Cesar and Cleopatra?), but it’s stuck with me since high school.
Thanks for 50 Great Years Bobby Cocks - (celebration cake from the US Senate)
by siddfynch on Jan 27, 2026 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
Gracias
I think it’s a bit of a downer and also a bit defeatist, but wise nonetheless.
The whole problem with the world is that fools & fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~ Bertrand Russell
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 28, 2026 6:39 PM EST up reply actions
Well said
He’s being completely arbitrary and irrational IMO.
by slurve on Jan 27, 2026 6:53 PM EST up reply actions
you do have the right to question him on his thought process and mistakes.
Well, sure. But I don’t see any criticism of the process. I see: “List sucks; Terrible” without any explanation other than “Just look at it.” There’s no discussion of what standard we should use to make this assessment. There’s no comment about why something specific was a mistake.
by aCone419 on Jan 26, 2026 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
Seems like you are being a bit irrational
Prospecting is an extremely inexact science. Sometimes the top talent in the minors doesn’t pan out in the long run due to injuries/stagnation/regression/whatever. That’s doesn’t mean that the analysis at the time was “terrible.” It means that “shit happens.”
If you have a specific reason that this list was flawed, that would be more interesting. But saying “list has busts; F-” is thoroughly unhelpful and shows an ignorance with regards to the whole point of probabilistic analysis.
What would a “good” 2006 list have looked like, in your opinion? Again, I’m looking for a reasonable contemporaneous assessment, not just a list of current WAR.
by aCone419 on Jan 26, 2026 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
Good List
Maybe there is no “good” 2006 list. Maybe there never will be a “good” list for any year.
The problem with this list is that it has most of the busts rated as highly (if not more so than other lists and doesn’t really “score” in any way on guys that were generally underrated.
How in God’s name is this list decent? It’s a failure by any measure I can think of. Sorry.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
by GregJP on Jan 26, 2026 5:02 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe there is no "good" 2006 list. Maybe there never will be a "good" list for any year.
That’s nonsense. The standard you are using is completely useless.
by aCone419 on Jan 26, 2026 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
How in God’s name is this list decent? It’s a failure by any measure I can think of. Sorry.
Just looking at the top 10, we have:
5 success: (Zimmerman, Quentin, Drew, Fielder, Kendrick)
2 Injury-derailments (Hermida, Gordon)
3 busts:
- 2 done in by poor BB:K (Young, Wood)
- 1 through out and out suckitude (Marte)
I’d say a 5/8 ratio on healthy top hitting prospects is decent. Not great, but decent.
by aCone419 on Jan 26, 2026 5:22 PM EST up reply actions
+1
not to mention, tabata just broke through this year, and i think hes gonna be fantastic. other succeses- braun, tulo, cargo, pence, russ martin(until last year anyway), rasmus, pedroia, upton(to an extent, too early to tell). that’s 13 successes. that’s a pretty decent amount of solid prospects in a top 50
by rangersfan24 on Jan 26, 2026 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
Young
is really a bust? Maybe for what he was supposed to be. But a season like his at age 25 is pretty damn good. He can still get better.
by CaptainHowdy on Jan 26, 2026 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
+1
and he’s only going to get better. right now id hold judgement on him
by rangersfan24 on Jan 26, 2026 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
I was always a big critic of Delmon’s too. I think he’s still got a chance to be very good.
by slurve on Jan 26, 2026 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
Sure
But I was being generous to Greg, since I doubt he’d accede to the #1 overall having a negative WAR being anything but a bust.
I agree that a number of the “flop” guys on this list can still pull out respectable careers.
by aCone419 on Jan 26, 2026 6:14 PM EST up reply actions
Decent
Just looking at the top 5…..we have
3 COMPLETE busts, 1 underachieving player, and 1 great player
These were the elite blue chip guys of the class
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
by GregJP on Jan 26, 2026 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
Not sure the point of this response
All of that was already included in my post above. I gave you a perfectly valid account of how one can assess the list as decent.
Hermida wasn’t a complete bust. He was a very good young player who then became chronically injured and wasn’t the same afterward. These things happen.
There are two out and out busts there: Marte and Wood. That’s hardly enough data for your assessment that this and all prospecting lists are forever terrible. There will always be busts. That’s what happens when you are trying to predict the future actions of humans.
by aCone419 on Jan 26, 2026 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
hermida
It wasn’t just the injuries with him. He was never a very good pure hitter and while he could draw a walk, his plate approach was overrated as a minor leaguer due to his passivity. He had some minor injuries but he still got plenty of ABs. I tend to think that his one strong ML year (2007) was an aberration . . .considering that he got over 900 ABs the next two years and put up a ~.735 OPS, I think the major problem was that he just didn’t have the skills needed for extended major league success.
by mrkupe on Jan 26, 2026 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
disagree
I know that “downfall by passivity” is the standard narrative on Hermida, but frankly I don’t buy it. Hermida was almost constantly injured from the very start of his career, and I find it very unlikely that he was completely unaffected by them:
02: Ankle
03: Heel
04: Hamstring
05: Knee, Hamstring
06: Hip (DL), Ankle
07: Knee (DL)
08: Hamstring (DL)
09: Oblique/Ribcage
10: Hamstring, Forearm, RIbs (DL)
And as for the “not a good pure hitter” thing… well, coming out of the draft BA rated him as the “Best Pure Hitter” in the class, and all throughout the minors he garnered comparisons to “professional hitters” like Paul O’Niell and Shawn Green.
Yeah, he probably wasn’t as good of a pure talent as people thought, but I find it way more plausible that the constant injuries have taken their toll than the idea that he was secretly a bad hitter all along and he “fluked” into a good first full season.
by aCone419 on Jan 26, 2026 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
I'm aware of what they said on him coming out of the draft
There was also a feature on him in BA in 2004 or 2005 (it slips my memory which year it was exactly) in which they got a scout’s view of Hermida, and the scout gave him a present 40, future 50 grade for hitting for average. That’s not a bad grade as most players cannot hope to even reach major league average, and it didn’t mean that he was a bad hitter.
I have no doubt that injuries played some role in his regression, but in his first 4 full seasons he got 307, 429, 502, and 429 ABs. He had some bad luck, but dude had well over 1500 plate appearances in the majors by the time he turned 26. Hard to say the injuries doomed him when he was able to play that much.
by mrkupe on Jan 26, 2026 7:29 PM EST up reply actions
I'd say that's actually really good
If you can get anywhere near 50 percent, kudos. Anything above that, you’re doing excellent.
by mrkupe on Jan 26, 2026 5:51 PM EST up reply actions
Sort of agree
While I agree with your general opinion on prospect bust rates, when specifically talking about top 10 hitting prospects, the standard is higher. Elite bat prospects are pretty decent bets.
Granted, I don’t have specific data in front of me, so I could be quite wrong.
by aCone419 on Jan 26, 2026 6:26 PM EST up reply actions
It depends. If you're nailing 50% of your low level picks than you're a freak.
If you’re picking the top guys at the AA/AAA levels than the 50% barometer isn’t as impressive. I’d be more interested in who the upper level hitters that weren’t on the list that did make it in a big way.
by FrancoTAU on Jan 27, 2026 12:10 AM EST up reply actions
Hermida/Gordon
I wouldn’t call them injury-derailments as they have never been nearly as good as expected even when they were healthy.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 26, 2026 9:55 PM EST up reply actions
first of all
i could really argue that this list is not an abomination period, but i wont cuz it’s just not worth the time. but how is it in any way an abomination on john’s part?
by rangersfan24 on Jan 26, 2026 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
WHY DIDN'T JOHN SICKELS PREDICT THE FUTURE EXACTLY??!?!?!
I WANT TO KNOW NOW. HE PERSONALLY GUARANTEED ME THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE PROSPECTS WOULD BE ALL-STARS, EVEN THOUGH LOTS OF PROSPECTS FAIL EVERY YEAR SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME. IT’S NOT LIKE THE TEAMS THOUGHT THESE PLAYERS WERE ANY GOOD (oh, wait). STILL, I WANT MY MONEY BACK FOR READING THIS WEBSITE.
Signed,
GREGJP
“I’m in the bottom half”
The whole problem with the world is that fools & fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~ Bertrand Russell
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 27, 2026 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Good job
You’ve successfully straw-manned an argument.
by nivarsity on Jan 27, 2026 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
tit for tat
The whole problem with the world is that fools & fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~ Bertrand Russell
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 27, 2026 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't straw man you. Neither did the GregJP.
You’ve parodied what he said. No one expects John to be perfect, but he isn’t above criticism either.
You’re either bad at reading or bad at arguing.
by nivarsity on Jan 27, 2026 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
Well said
I find it funny that so many people get mad at people for criticizing John when John’s job involves criticizing prospects.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 27, 2026 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
Strawman:
misrepresentation of an opponent’s position
Is, in a way, what I did. You may be right about that. (I would call it lampooning (or parodying, as you said) - GregJP made a stupid statement, and I exaggerated his claim, hopefully to make a point about the stupidity of the statement.) I did it to chide GregJP for picking a tiny little statement by John Sickels (“decent list”) and making that the basis of a huge argument hashed out above, an argument that had nothing to do with why Sickels published this article or what Sickels was saying by publishing the article.
No one expects John to be perfect
I’m not sure what GregJP expects, but most found his expectations to be unrealistic and his way of expressing them improper.
but he isn’t above criticism either.I haven’t said Sickels or anyone else was above criticism. He deserves the same amount of criticism as the rest of us, but also the same amount of respect (and measured thought), both of which I found lacking in GregJP’s take.
You’re either bad at reading or bad at arguing.
Maybe I was or wasn’t clear; maybe I was or wasn’t right. But this doesn’t seem like a particularly good way to argue that.
The whole problem with the world is that fools & fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~ Bertrand Russell
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 28, 2026 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
Really?
This was just a bad year for busts. Everyone and their brother missed on most of John’s busts. Hermida was on the cover of BA’s book for Christsaske. Relatively speaking - the list is absolutely “decent”. Go look at all of the other major lists from the same year and then make a legit case as to why this list is “terrible”. You won’t be able to do it.
by slurve on Jan 26, 2026 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
Other Lists
So maybe they were all “terrible” Isn’t that possible? What would be wrong with saying that we’re really terrible at this and we need to get better.
I mean before the Wright brothers nobody could fly a plane. Maybe we’re 20 years away from getting this right. (like defensive metrics) Let’s not be so freaking defensive all of the time.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
by GregJP on Jan 26, 2026 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
Like I said
“relatively speaking”. Until I see your list from that year - your opinion of anybody else’s list isn’t worth a squirt of piss.
by slurve on Jan 26, 2026 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
That's unreasonable
I don’t make lists of my own. That does not mean I can’t have an opinion on John’s.
by nivarsity on Jan 26, 2026 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
Didn't say
he couldn’t have an opinion. Just said it wasn’t worth much.
by slurve on Jan 27, 2026 1:28 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't see your 2006 list here.
So, your pro-John opinion ain’t worth much either. And your opinion about his opinion also ain’t worth much.
Your way of thinking is fun!
by nivarsity on Jan 28, 2026 1:59 AM EST up reply actions
It's not so much
a pro-John position as it is an anti-GregJP position. I think my mechanic example below says it best. If you can’t wrap your head around that and see how that applies to GregJP, I’m wasting keystokes. And actually I DO have prospect lists going back about 8 years now. Even so - I don’t think that really gives me any sort of qualification to jump down the throat of someone who does that type of thing for a living, as I realize there is quite a bit of difference between what goes into my lists and what goes into John’s, BA’s etc.
by slurve on Jan 28, 2026 7:03 AM EST up reply actions
That's the worst kind of hack defense. I think Greg is over reacting a bit.
But it’s like saying because I don’t make movies that I can’t criticize Uwe Boll.
by FrancoTAU on Jan 27, 2026 12:13 AM EST up reply actions
Sure
You can critique all you want. But who would put any value into it? Roger Ebert has had sceenplays he has written turned into movies. I’m guessing you haven’t. See the difference?
by slurve on Jan 27, 2026 1:33 AM EST up reply actions
This is nonsense
Do you watch ESPN? Do you read the sports page in the newspaper? Most of those people never played sports at the major league level but you listen to them comment on baseball.
by lions1 on Jan 27, 2026 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
Counterpoint
Listening to ESPN or reading the average sportswriter for baseball analysis is a terrible idea.
by aCone419 on Jan 27, 2026 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
People still do...
That’s the only point I was making
by lions1 on Jan 27, 2026 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
John used to work for ESPN
ESPN has plenty of people who are very knowledgeable.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 27, 2026 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
ESPN has a few good writers, but the vast majority of their analysis is simple-minded. Especially the mainstream baseball coverage (ie Baseball tonight).
by aCone419 on Jan 27, 2026 6:21 PM EST up reply actions
Commenting/reproting is different than criticism.
and I agree with aCone419 - terrible idea.
by slurve on Jan 27, 2026 6:26 PM EST up reply actions
Worst logic ever.
This is like the elitist echo chamber all of a sudden.
by nivarsity on Jan 27, 2026 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
Not at all
It’s called being qualified. Not such hard concept and not at all elitist.
by slurve on Jan 27, 2026 6:30 PM EST up reply actions
Extremely elitist.
And not a concept at all, since you’ve done nothing to define it other than suggesting it means you have to have been making prospect lists since at least 2006. Which is insane.
by nivarsity on Jan 28, 2026 1:53 AM EST up reply actions
I guess it is a tougher
concept for some than I thought.
Which is more qualified to fix your vehicle correctly - the shadetree mechanic who fiddles with cars once in a while, or the factory trained / certified technician that does it for a living and is dedicated to his craft?
by slurve on Jan 28, 2026 6:45 AM EST up reply actions
Did this guy ever say he was more qualified than John at prospecting? Was that ever implied?
Nope.
Can he have a legit opinion on John’s own prospecting? Yep.
To say otherwise is elitist no matter how you slice it. But perhaps that’s a tougher concept for some than I thought.
by nivarsity on Jan 28, 2026 8:00 AM EST up reply actions
You're soooo clever.
You’re right. I couldn’t possibly keep up.
by nivarsity on Jan 28, 2026 8:02 AM EST up reply actions
John is not a scout
He has not been trained to evaluate prospects as he has stated he has zero scouting training. Instead he is someone who taught himself, more similar to the self-taught mechanic.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 28, 2026 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
Missed it
The point is that its his fulltime job and he has done it well enough to be paid by nationally recognized companies. Gotta love how some people around here just do anything they can to nitpick at details to discredit a point since they got nothing else.
by slurve on Jan 28, 2026 10:49 AM EST up reply actions
Make an accurate point and people won't discredit it.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 28, 2026 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
It's as
accurate and valid of a comparison as I’ve seen on this site. And you know what you just said is complete bullshit - people will do anything around here to tear down something they don’t like.
by slurve on Jan 28, 2026 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
LOL
And you know what you just said is complete bullshit – people will do anything around here to tear down something they don’t like.
That should read:
And you know what you just said is complete bullshit – people slurve will do anything around here to tear down something they don’t like.
I’m not sure why you think the whole community is here just to tear other people down. I find the majority of posters are anxious to learn and embrace new ideas.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 28, 2026 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
Furthermore
Who cares if John has been trained as a scout. This was never a debate as to whether he is a scout - another fine example of nitpicking details and going off aon a tangent. The question at hand was that he is more qualified than some random poster on his website. Part of John’s job entails working side by side with scouts. That in and of itself makes him exponentially more qualified than GregJP.
by slurve on Jan 28, 2026 11:07 AM EST up reply actions
John's book is self-published
Which would be the equivalent of a movie critic turning his screenplay into an independent movie. I really don’t think your example applies here.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 27, 2026 5:09 PM EST up reply actions
So
He has also been a paid employee of ESPN and Rotowire. He is - by definition - a professional. GregJP - not so much. That’s not to say John is above criticism by any of us here. I just think the criticism by GregJP in this particular case was unfounded peanut gallery hindsight bullshit. He still has done nothing to show how this list is so much worse than any other major source. The “all lists are poor” is a cop out.
by slurve on Jan 27, 2026 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
Meh
You are entitled to your opinion.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 27, 2026 9:07 PM EST up reply actions
Huh?
Are you trying to start a flame war or something? I’m not really interested in arguing GregJP’s battle. I was simply pointing out that your Ebert argument was poor. Move along boy before somebody gets hurt.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 28, 2026 12:32 AM EST up reply actions
And if you
weren’t intersted in arguing / starting a flamewar, you would have stayed out to begim with.
by slurve on Jan 28, 2026 12:59 AM EST up reply actions
I didn't "begim" anything
LOL. Debating an argument does not mean that somebody wants to start a flame war. Civil discourse is good for the community.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 28, 2026 1:18 AM EST up reply actions
Really?
“Move along boy before somebody gets hurt.” Civil discourse. Indeed.
by slurve on Jan 28, 2026 1:21 AM EST up reply actions
BP's list was very similar, but was a bit better from 25 on...
The position players from their top 50:
1. D. Young
2. Hermida
3. Zimmerman
4. Kendrick
5. Wood
6. Marte
7. C. Young
8. Fielder
9. Gordon
10. Pedroia (this was one that they got relatively right)
11. Milledge
12. Guzman
13. Stewart
14. Barton
15. Drew
16. Butler
17. Johjima (this one was a big risk that flopped)
18. Andy LaRoche
19. Saltalamacchia
20. Morales
21. Quentin
22. Pie
23. Clement
24. Brian Anderson
25. Markakis
26. Huber
27. Braun
28. Kinsler
29. J. Upton
30. Jacobs
31. Jones
32. Snelling
33. Willingham
34. Barfield
35. Aybar
Honorable mentions (listed alphabetically):
Cedeno
Cargo
Corey Hart
Conor Jackson
Kemp
Kottaras
Martin
Patterson
Pence
Hanley Ramirez
It seemed everybody was missing pretty badly on Ramirez. Plus the fact that they had so many position players on a top 50 for that year is pretty bad. Their pitching list was awful after the top three:
1. Liriano
2. Cain
3. Verlander
4. Sowers
5. Billingsley
6. Reyes
7. Zumaya
8. Petit
9. Weaver
10. Papelbon
11. Maholm
12. Hughes
13. Cabrera
14. Hansen
15. Rich Hill
Among the pitchers missing that were prospects in 2006: Wainwright, Jimenez, Lester, Danks and Hamels (Hamels was an Honorable Mention along with Gio Gonzalez, Broxton and Thomas Diamond).
by Rox Girl on Jan 26, 2026 5:19 PM EST up reply actions
What about Johjima was a flop?
He was 8.1 wins over replacement (per Fangraphs) for his U.S. career, spanning 462 games.
His career may not have lasted as long as some on the list. He was 30 when it came out, however, so I’m guessing it wasn’t a surprise.
by PissedMick on Jan 26, 2026 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
In fact, the exact opposite of what is say is much more accurate.
Johjima was a low-risk pick that succeeded.
by PissedMick on Jan 26, 2026 5:25 PM EST up reply actions
I'm underrating him.
I had no idea that he was that valuable. I need to pay more attention to the AL West.
by Rox Girl on Jan 26, 2026 5:25 PM EST up reply actions
Thank you
I just ran a similar analysis for my dynasty league (WAR value of each draft slot from last 5 years), and was pleasantly surprised to see where Johjima shook out. He was taken relatively late, and provided by far the most WAR for that slot; as you say below, a low-risk pick that was very successful.
Thanks for 50 Great Years Bobby Cocks - (celebration cake from the US Senate)
by siddfynch on Jan 27, 2026 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
Haha
You’re using of the infamous J. Upton @ 29 list makes me laugh out loud.
by slurve on Jan 26, 2026 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
Really?
Hughes, Papelbon, Weaver and Billingsley were all decent picks I think. Added to the Top3 , that’s 7/15. I don’t think you guys realize the attrition rate of prospects. Years ago I did a study of old BA lists for Project Prospect and those lists were lucky to have a 20% success rate. We all love prospects, but 5 years ago lists were not as plentiful and research was not as widely available. I would love to think that current lists will have better than 20% success rates, but no list is going to be 80% correct; if for no other reason than attrition.
by killa on Jan 26, 2026 6:54 PM EST up reply actions
There's a pretty big difference in "bust rates" for the top 15 compared to the entire top 100.
by PissedMick on Jan 26, 2026 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
True
But those 15 pitchers also weren’t the Top 15 prospects in the game, they were 15 of the Top 50.
by killa on Jan 26, 2026 10:35 PM EST up reply actions
You couldn't be more wrong.
John’s list is far better than BP’s. Show me someone who had a better list or STFU.
by HeavyHitter on Jan 26, 2026 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not ready to...
call any player currently playing a bust. Sure players like Young, Gordon, and Wood have played under expectations but there is still time. Hey, Wood could be the next Phil Nevin, who I don’t call a bust.
by Havok1517 on Jan 27, 2026 6:30 PM EST up reply actions
this
is an awful list. There’s at least 20 complete busts, not including the disappointments like Gordon, Salty, Milledge, Pie…. there’s gotta be only a dozen or so who actually became everyday players…. rather sad… can’t wait to see the pitcher’s list
by another know it all on Jan 26, 2026 3:22 PM EST reply actions
sarcasm?
hopefully?
The whole problem with the world is that fools & fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~ Bertrand Russell
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 27, 2026 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
Busts
Wow. A lot of busts on that list and 2010 made a few players avoid the bust title.
by zeuspower on Jan 26, 2026 3:28 PM EST reply actions
To be fair
I appreciate that John posts these. They are informative regarding the success of his past predictions and allow the community to analyze his work. Nobody is perfect and perhaps this was just an off year or perhaps John did something different.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 26, 2026 3:32 PM EST reply actions
+1
but I think it speaks more to the fact that you just never know with prospects.
by another know it all on Jan 26, 2026 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
True
But I really think John made a lot of oversites, and overrated guys on this list.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 26, 2026 3:37 PM EST up reply actions
Specifically?
Which players do you consider to have been overrated at the time?
by aCone419 on Jan 26, 2026 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
The 'busts' in the top 10...
(Young, Hermida, Wood, Gordon) were guys that nearly everyone was high on. I would argue that, rather than this list being an example of poor prospecting, it’s an example of how volatile prospects can be and how hard it is to succeed in the majors.
Many here would benefit by keeping this in mind when arguing placement on prospect lists, or showing disdain because someone else doesn’t like ‘your guy’ as much as you do.
by PissedMick on Jan 26, 2026 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
Yes
What PissedMick said.
I don’t know if anybody in the world is decent at predicting future performance in baseball, but unless it’s some guy we haven’t heard of then no.
Sickels, Goldstein, Law, etc. are no better or worse than anybody who seriously follows minor leaguers. They just happened to have been lucky enough or worked hard enough to get their gigs.
Sorry, that’s the honest truth.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
by GregJP on Jan 26, 2026 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
+0.5
I think there are people on this site who know more then some so-called ‘experts’ (i.e. Gatling, MrKupe, Alskor, Dewey).
However, I disagree that guys such as Goldstein and Law are no better or worse than anybody who follows the minor leagues. Law was an assistant GM, and Goldstein and Law both have a huge network of scouts to contact to get first hand information on prospects that the average blogger does not have available to them.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
by King Billy Royal on Jan 26, 2026 4:00 PM EST up reply actions
True
I agree, but beyond the fact that they “know more people” I don’t really think they have any particular insight. It’s all about gathering information.
I’ll always remember the first time I saw Timmay pitch on ESPN Sunday Night Baseball. I posted on the forum in my keeper league that he’d win multiple Cy Youngs. (or something like that)
So haw did x number of teams pass on him?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
by GregJP on Jan 26, 2026 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
You are contradicting yourself.
You say he “knows more people” but that it is all about gathering information. He gathers more info by knowing more people. Lets be serious now, how many scouts and such do you know?
Another thing. If these experts weren’t out there, many propsects who are good would be overlooked. Not everyone goes to milb games and is a scout, so how would we know all the propsects other than looking at stats?
by mr. maniac on Jan 26, 2026 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
+100
it’s amazing how many prospects i know about just from reading this site and others like it. otherwise i might now rangers prospects and the top picks out of each draft. to me this site and baseball beginnings are the best
by rangersfan24 on Jan 26, 2026 5:38 PM EST up reply actions
you saw him pitch in the big leagues and said, hey this guys is good.
wow. you are way better at this than everyone.
who is the gentleman in the red cap making a duck/gangsta face? -OzzieMontana
by e-gus on Jan 27, 2026 10:39 AM EST up reply actions
Not looking to get into a flame war
But, I think you are underestimating the amount of contacts these “experts” have in the industry. While I prefer the first hand reports from most writers, it is arguable that the information they get from scouts and disseminate is more valuable.
Come check out Bullpen Banter!
Follow Bullpen Banter on Twitter
Follow me on Twitter
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by JD Sussman on Jan 26, 2026 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
Yes
Of course they have more information, but my points are…
1) Does the information really have a significant amount of predictive value?
2) Could you or I do the same job with this information?
In my keeper league 5 years ago I picked Marte and Guzman in rounds 1 and 2. I still have done very well in that league. So how much was I helped by minor league sites like this one? Not a whole heck of a lot because I picked Votto in round 15.
That was lucky, and sometimes I think there is more luck than anything when it comes to predicting the future performance of young baseball players.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
by GregJP on Jan 26, 2026 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
1) Does the information really have a significant amount of predictive value?
I’m not sure that is the appropriate question. Scouting data is imperfect so any writer (you, me, John) is limited by those imperfections. I’m not sure the data is predicting anything. But without that information, one cannot cobble it together with the help of statistics to form any sort of analysis.
2) Could you or I do the same job with this information?
Yes, you probably could write similar conclusions as “experts” do. But, without “experts” the only scouting data you have is from video (that means no velocity for pitchers, and limited data about movement) and first hand viewing (which can be done like Scouting the Sally - camping out at one park- but then you miss a huge % the rest of the league). Leaving you without information and thus inadequate.
Come check out Bullpen Banter!
Follow Bullpen Banter on Twitter
Follow me on Twitter
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by JD Sussman on Jan 26, 2026 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
My response.....
1) Yes it does. How can you tell the difference between a non prospect and a good one in the GCL league without hearing from scouts or going on your own? A good example would be Enny Romero. Without listening to these guys, most of us would assume he was just another pitcher.
2) To a smaller degree. You are (correct me if I am wrong) no scout, so you couldn’t do as much with the video.
by mr. maniac on Jan 26, 2026 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
There has to be something to prospect picking more than luck.
Otherwise, why do the certain teams become player factories while other are consistently bad at it.
by FrancoTAU on Jan 27, 2026 12:21 AM EST up reply actions
This is true....obviously, great prospects bust all the time.
Still, one of the reason analysts make a living doing this is to weed at least some of those guys out. That obviously didn’t happen in 2006 with this list. John even acknowledged that he put too much emphasis on AAAA sluggers back then.
In 2006 anyone could’ve compiled a list of top prospects, average it out, and make a list similar to this top 10. Would we be defending that dude for a dubious list? I guess my point is, if we don’t hold prospect evaluators accountable when their top prospects fail, when do we hold them accountable?
by nivarsity on Jan 27, 2026 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
Wow
Arguably the guys on the list from 22-35 have had the most MLB success as a grouping.
by BryceHarper on Jan 26, 2026 3:55 PM EST reply actions
Yes,
and the guys from 41-50 are about as good as the top 10. Without singling out John here, I think the takeaway is that groupthink is always at work in listmaking like this. Was there anyone writing back then who had the temerity to say “Eh, you can have Andy Marte, he just doesn’t look like a top 10 prospect to me”? Besides John Schuerholz, I mean.
by cookierojas16 on Jan 26, 2026 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe...
….there is just no way to predict the future performance of young baseball players. Wouldn’t that just suck.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
by GregJP on Jan 26, 2026 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
You can't predict perfectly
But compare this list to a group of 50 random minor league hitters who didn’t make the list. Which group would be more successful on average?
This is starting to sound like like that stupid Malcom Gladwell argument that it’s impossible to tell who will be a good NFL QB.
by maguro on Jan 27, 2026 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
Ryan Zimmerman, already past 17 WAR and is still yet to enter his prime.
He could very easily be a hall of famer one day.
by Nnamdi Asomugha on Jan 26, 2026 3:59 PM EST reply actions
I always felt bad for Ryan Shealy
Never felt like he was given a fair shot, even though he performed decently in his MLB career and appeared to get better as he got older.
"We don’t have guys with a long history of being effective in the seventh and eighth innings."
~Trey Hillman, master of understatements.
by RoyalPug on Jan 26, 2026 4:05 PM EST reply actions
Sad
This list had a lot of potential. Lot of guys did not put it together.
In Lax We Trust -
Offical Pro Lacrosse Blog of SBN
Listen to NLL Live
by Marisa Ingemi on Jan 26, 2026 4:37 PM EST reply actions
in retrospect, I find this FanPost from five years ago very amusing. One of the teams with seemingly the least potential five years ago just won the World Series while quite a few of those with the most (Indians, Angels, D-backs) really can’t be very pleased with how things worked out by relying on their own talent.
by Rox Girl on Jan 26, 2026 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
yes
It’s incredibly hard to build a winning team just through the farm. You need some timely acquisitions and a few known quantities, even if those players by themselves aren’t anything great. The Rays seem to be a popular example of a team that built through the farm . . .but their success was helped by the emergence of Ben Zobrist and Carlos Pena, the acquisition of Jason Bartlett, the steal of Rafael Soriano, and (perhaps most tellingly) the trade of the former “franchise savior” Delmon Young for a package that included Bartlett and Matt Garza.
To be fair to the Indians, the biggest problem for that organization was that they had plenty of depth but few talents with high ceilings. Attrition did the rest. The Indians even got lucky in pulling off the Choo steal, getting one of the better offensive players in baseball for next to nothing.
by mrkupe on Jan 26, 2026 5:18 PM EST up reply actions
The Rockies did something similar, although not quite to the degree of the Rays,
they’ve done well in picking off talented cast-offs to fill out their rotation (JDLR, Hammel) when prospects like Franklin Morales and Greg Reynolds flopped and were successful in trading Matt Holliday for an equivalent or better return.
by Rox Girl on Jan 26, 2026 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
Angels & Diamondbacks
Criticisms about John’s list miss the fact that there was widespead consensus about the depth of the Angels and Dbacks farm systems. I also remember the Dodgers (Martin, Loney, Kemp, Billingsley) and Reds (Votto, Bruce, Bailey) having highly anticipated waves of studs coming in.
And those lists were pretty accurate. Certainly the Angels suffered more busts than most with Wood and McPherson completely crapping out, and players like Kotchman and Kendrick disappointing in their lack of power. But if the Dbacks had held on to Quentin and CarGo they’d have justified more of their hype. And the other part is that it sometimes takes longer for players to develop, as we’ve seen with the Reds finally putting it together in 2010, or Delmon Young’s late emergence.
It is interesting that the pitching prospects were easier to spot and project. You do see a lot of hitting prospects that fail in three regards: 1) Failure to develop power (Loney, Kotchman, Barton); 2) Failure to control the strike zone; 3) Sliding down the defensive spectrum/ not having a position at the MLB level. That’s completely apart from those prospects who fail due to injuries.
by DavidS on Jan 27, 2026 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
Barton's a failure?
he put up almost 5 WAR last year at 24 most of the season
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 27, 2026 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
Power
I didn’t call him a failure. I said he failed to develop the power (so far) that was projected for him.
Much of his WAR is based on his defense. He’s an on-base machine, and he’s an excellent defender and a valuable player. If he hit 25 HR a year, though, he’d be an elite player for first base.
by DavidS on Jan 27, 2026 9:49 PM EST up reply actions
Unless you can say you made a better list at that time
or point to where someone else made a much better list, I don’t think it’s fair to criticize this list. I remember all the raves for Hermida, Marte, Gordon, et. al. It wasn’t just John. GIGO; I’m glad John reviews his lists like this so he can make some judgments about which scouts or experts have provided the most accurate information.
by HeavyHitter on Jan 26, 2026 5:14 PM EST reply actions
C'mon. That's akin to saying, you can't criticize a prospect because he's better at baseball than you are.
by nivarsity on Jan 26, 2026 9:15 PM EST up reply actions
I think what he means to say that it is easy to criticize a list when he himself did not have an opinion at the time.
by mr. maniac on Jan 26, 2026 10:00 PM EST up reply actions
So since I didn't make a 2006 list, I can't say a single critical word about John's.
Mmm hmmm.
I guess that means you shouldn’t defend John either. You didn’t make a list, so how could you know if his is any good?
by nivarsity on Jan 27, 2026 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
My favorite rejoinder in these situations
“I don’t have to walk on the sun to know that it’s hot.”
Thanks for 50 Great Years Bobby Cocks - (celebration cake from the US Senate)
by siddfynch on Jan 27, 2026 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think
anybody is saying that exactly. At the same time, know your place. Critcism is one thing. GregJP has just set some random, undefined personal standard to which he is holding this list up to and has taken an irrational exception to the word “decent”. When I look at the definition of decent - it strikes me as John giving himself a C/C+ grade. GregJP seems to believe that this is some major transgression, yet he’s done nothing yet to justify his position really.
by slurve on Jan 27, 2026 6:44 PM EST up reply actions
Well if you think the guy is being a dick, that's one thing.
If you think he has no right to criticize because he doesn’t make prospect lists for his job, that’s another.
by nivarsity on Jan 28, 2026 1:52 AM EST up reply actions
enjoy the flashback
Predicting prospects perfectly is an almost impossible task, just like the MLB draft. You find the players you felt had the best tools or appear to have a skill set to be sucessful majorleagers and you hope from there the player learns to hone their skills to be successful ballplayers. To say it this a bad list is pretty ignorant, it is a given fact that not all 50 prospects are going to be major leaguers or stars. Just from a quick glance through the list, I would say around 25-26 of the prospects on the list are major league starters (maybe not stars but at least contribute to their clubs). A few players that are used off the bench and a couple of bouncers from AAA to the big league club. There are a few flops, but that is to be expected in any prospect list.
by erocstrat on Jan 26, 2026 5:35 PM EST reply actions
John did way better than BP
When you look at the 9 star players (Pedroia, Upton, Drew, Tulo, Markakis, Braun, CarGo, McCutchen and Rasmus) where there is a significant difference in the rankings, Johns rankings were more accurate on 8 of them, with Pedroia being the lone exception. Frankly, that’s all I care about - - give me my best shot of drafting a future star; we all know that this isn’t an exact science.
by HeavyHitter on Jan 26, 2026 5:44 PM EST reply actions
Math
We should throw some numbers at this. I’ll do a rank vs career WAR plot and see what the correlation coefficient is. It’s going to be positive, but me thinks that >50% is going to be random.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
by GregJP on Jan 26, 2026 6:12 PM EST reply actions
Use all 2006 MiLB players
These 50 players were selected from a the entire population of MiLB players. If you want to test the correlation, be sure to capture how many MiLB players that never got a big league single, weren’t on this list. That’ll bump the correlation coefficient to pretty high.
by visgc1 on Jan 26, 2026 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
not this way
You can’t determine what % of the variation is random from a correlation coefficient. You could from a bivariate regression, but then anyone who really knows statistics would laugh at you since it is ridiculous to expect a ranking of prospects alone to predict over 50% of WAR. There is simply too much uncertainty in player development (or from a statistical perspective, too much random variation). Now, some of that uncertainty could be modeled, such as injuries and being positionally blocked, and John often mentions these things in his book, but you are essentially discounting those and only holding him accountable based on his ranking, which is a very blunt measure of expected performance. Given this, it would be amazing if anyone explained more than 50% of WAR with just their ranking. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that it would never happen. Also, if you are going to throw “math” at this, you should do it the correct way and not judge John against some arbitrary criterion but compare how well he predicts relative to other experts.
by svpl_fury on Jan 27, 2026 7:11 AM EST up reply actions
Interesting
So if I took 3 different top 50 lists from 2006 and used 1-50 as x variables and career WAR as y variables and calculated the correlation coefficient in each case and compared the three would I be correctly deciding who had the best list?
Now I realize we’re talking about a very small sample, but would the method itself be mathematically sound?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
by GregJP on Jan 27, 2026 9:43 AM EST up reply actions
Don't forget...
this is just a list - absent of player comments. Criticizing the list without considering John’s analysis as he saw it at the time, is, in my opinion, unfair. Perhaps consider the list as a learning opportunity as John surely does…
by almantle on Jan 26, 2026 6:33 PM EST reply actions
Not to mention...
These players are put on this list at different stages of their careers. Some are closer to a call up, and some are barely out of high school. It’s so tough to predict a player out of high school with high upside and expect him to meet it. Rarely happens…
by Internet Bullies on Jan 26, 2026 6:37 PM EST reply actions
I THINK THIS LIST IS FINE!
People are being way too overly critical of John. A LOT of people were wrong on some of the high profile busts on the list. The industry as a whole makes mistakes sometimes, just check out past lists from KG, LAW, BA, MAYO.
Personally, I see 20 out of the Top 30 on John’s list as productive everyday MLB players right now, ranging from average to above average. I think that’s a pretty damn good ratio. The likelihood of every prospect on a “Top _ List” reaching their upside ceiling is sooo slim. Therefore, the fact that 20 out of the Top 30 on John’s list have developed into everyday starting players is impressive to me.
Most hated man on Minor League Ball??? Nah.
Dewey and KBR are just.......too........sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!!
The Wolfpac is looking for new soldiers! Change your logo to the black and red!!!
Visit www.faketeams.com & www.bullpenbanter.com for excellent fantasy & prospect analysis!!!
by Dewey Finn on Jan 26, 2026 7:17 PM EST reply actions
Marcus Sanders
What really happened with him? I know he got hurt and was ineffective in 2007, then went back to Augusta in 2008 and had an okay if unspectacular season. The next year, he’s in indy ball . . .maybe he wasn’t destined for a major league future, but when a guy goes from being one of the org’s top prospects to indy ball in 2 years, it seems like there’s got to be something pretty major that I’m missing here. Was he just never that highly thought of by people “in the know”, was he completely lacking in minor league-caliber talent after injury, or was there something else that wasn’t reported?
by mrkupe on Jan 26, 2026 9:21 PM EST reply actions
So what have we LEARNED???
I think asking whether the list good, or decent, or terrible is academic at this point. What we should be asking ourselves is how can we learn from this list. What did we know in 2005 that could have tipped us off to the guys that ultimately would make it? What attributes were overrated? Underrated? Just coming out of the draft, was there any way we could have known that Ryan Braun was a better player than Jeff Clement? Could we have known that Andy Marte would suck and Dustin Pedroia would be an MVP? How? And how can we use those lessons to better analyze prospects now?
(I, by the way, have no clue as to the answer to any of these questions.)
by Trashman on Jan 26, 2026 10:52 PM EST reply actions
point
That is the whole point of this exercise. I look for commonalities with the busts. There both tools busts and stathead busts on that list.
by John Sickels on Jan 26, 2026 11:13 PM EST up reply actions
agree of course
That is part of why I have pushed doing the last year’s prospects lists, to try to capture a point in time of a prospect’s evolution into an established player and what we learn when our theories about what the players ought to be able to do, become the actualities of their major league performance.
Nonetheless, I will post a bit on the subject of rating a list. To me, the easiest way to rate a list is to judge how you would have done had you conducted a draft based on the list, whether fantasy or real life.
Taking John’s list from abovle, BP’s list, above and looking up Jim Callis’s list from the 2006 BA prospect handbook, here is what would have happened if the three had drafted against each other in spring 2006, each strictly adhering to the rankings in their respective lists. I gave John first pick since this is his site.
Sickels
D Young
A. Marte
C. Quentin
J. Saltalamachia
J. Guzman
J Upton
N. Markakis
J. Clement
R. Braun
R. Martin
BP
Hermidia
R. Zimmerman
H. Kendrick
C. Young
D. Pedroia
J. Guzman
D. Barton
B. Butler
K. Johjima
K. Morales
Callis
Brandon Wood
Stephen Drew
Alex Gordon
Prince Fielder
L. Milledge
I. Stewart
C. Jackson
A. Laroche
T. Tulowitski
F. Pie
Hmmm. Some very nice hits and some real busts on each list. Anyone see a pattern to the hits and misses by each of the three?
by Dalman on Jan 27, 2026 12:16 AM EST reply actions
I'm not sure the exercise is very scientific, but it makes John look like he's in love with power.
by FrancoTAU on Jan 27, 2026 12:35 AM EST up reply actions
maybe not scientific
but it’s how we rate real life gms and their drafts . They all have their draft boards and then if one has a player rated 80th and everyone else has him rated 100th, that has the consequence that for good or bad they are likely to get the player.
by Dalman on Jan 27, 2026 7:47 AM EST up reply actions
Ughhh
What an unneccesarily ugly start to the comments for such a useful post by John. As I was reading the main post, I was having flashbacks to 2006 and thinking “wow, this has GOT to be the biggest crash among Top 5s for all years!”. And then the top ten, and top 20. It’s not john, it’s that this year had a lot of guys that we ALL thought were can’t miss…that did. Hermida, Gordon, ken rick….these were all 30-30 guys, batting avg chamops, etc.
To me, it’s not a referendum on John, it’s an editorial on how random the vagaries of hitter development are, and a warning on the problems of Group Think. Every time I see someone here criticize a top50 list for being "crazy"’ , i just wonder whether that will be the one that looks best in 5 years.
Thanks for 50 Great Years Bobby Cocks - (celebration cake from the US Senate)
by siddfynch on Jan 27, 2026 1:16 AM EST reply actions 4 recs
true, true
I think people have been spoiled by the unprecedented number of successful debuts for players over the past year or two. Now, maybe this is due to a string of aggressive promotions and we’ll see a weak prospect pool for the next couple of years. Then again, last year the general consensus was that the prospect pool was much weaker than it had been in quite some time.
More likely, I think it’s just been a coincidence that a number of players debuted over their heads in 2010 and that over the next couple of years, we’re going to see the performance level of the 2010 rookie class level out. It’s really, really important to take prospect evaluation from an extremely conservative perspective. Most players are going to undershoot their upside projections. Even the best prospects are more likely to end up as solid regulars than All Stars. I’d say Stephen Drew (infielder) and Adam Jones (outfielder) are players who found their way to reasonable expected outcomes . . .would people be disappointed if the likes of, say, Dustin Ackley and Will Myers ended up being similarly productive?
by mrkupe on Jan 27, 2026 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
rec'd
It’s amazing Baseball America survived ranking Todd Van Poppel some years ago! They have no credibility!
Prospecting is difficult, and I find these posts significantly more interesting and informative.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
by dfa on Jan 27, 2026 2:05 AM EST up reply actions
One thing i find useful here
Is to look at the position switches. We burn a lot of time here arguing about who will move down the defensive spectrum….ackley, lawrie, myers, etc. The reaility from 2006 is that nearly EVERY prospect who was suspect at their position moved down. Guzman, butler, Braun, etc. Without flipping back up to the list (damn iPad), salty is the only one that standsnout as sticking despite serious questions.
Thanks for 50 Great Years Bobby Cocks - (celebration cake from the US Senate)
by siddfynch on Jan 27, 2026 1:21 AM EST reply actions
good point
Butler and Braun weren’t just questions though, they were both utter disasters on defense. Both also hit the crap out of the ball and were too good to sit any longer in the minors working on defense.
I never liked Guzman very much (his aggressive swing and miss tendencies were crippling), but he also lost the conditioning battle as his body matured. He was tall and used to be very lanky, and then he filled out well beyond the point to where he was stuck at positions that his offensive deficiencies made him a non-factor. It would have been interesting to have seen what would have happened had he stayed in shape and been able to play a decent 3B.
by mrkupe on Jan 27, 2026 1:55 AM EST up reply actions
Good addenda yourself
To which I would add that your comments about Braun/Butler/Guzman seem to apply to several prospects each year that we burn a lot of steam on debating. I remember a lot of the debates from 2006, and it’s interesting to look at the list above and see where they are now.
It’s also interesting that we often read “…he may need to move to 1st, but the bat may not play there….” For some of the guys above, this was really the case - once they moved down the defensive spectrum, they just became out-competed with the stick. Someone above mentioned injuries, but I really think a lot of these guys just failed to progress along the curve as well as projected. That will probably be different for the pitchers, which I assume is coming out soon..
Thanks for 50 Great Years Bobby Cocks - (celebration cake from the US Senate)
by siddfynch on Jan 27, 2026 10:38 AM EST up reply actions
Nothing wrong with this list
There seems to be a lot of hindsight criticism of the list which I find incredibly bizarre. The whole idea of a list is to make the best analysis and decisions possible based on the information available.
In the cases where everyone missed on a player, typically the flaws that seem obvious after the fact weren’t apparent at the time of the rankings. Some of these players were ranked highly one year and slid down lists as their production tailed off in future years. If all the evidence at the time supports the high ranking, there’s nothing wrong with it even if 5 years down the road they’re out of baseball. I find it hard to criticize one of these lists without concrete evidence to the contrary on a player that was widely available prior to the rankings.
by Ophidian on Jan 27, 2026 9:00 AM EST reply actions
Decent relative to other 2006 lists?
I for one enjoy looking back at these lists to see what the hits and misses were and try and see what happened with the misses. Was John’s list for 2006 decent relative to other lists at that time? I think most people had guys like Gordon and Hermida et al ranked pretty high and missed on them. To call it terrible seems unfair since there were really no “good” lists from 2006 that I can recall.
by Rhody Royals on Jan 27, 2026 10:21 AM EST reply actions
This is a good idea to do every year. I wish that all the rating services would go back and grade and publicly display how wrong/right they were in their past rankings. I have a strong feeling that the services that rate college football recruiting classes would all end up with egg on their faces.
My 2 main reactions to this thread are:
1. The elephant in the room not being mentioned. I’m surprised, with all of the back-and-forth on whether John’s list was good, bad, decent, or terrible, that nobody has stated the obvious thing missing in the argument. What about all of the guys that aren’t on the list that, in hindsight, should have been there. When you’re discussing successes and bombs you also have to include misses. Off the top of my head I can think of 7 guys who were still in the minors prior to the 2006 season, but they ddin’t make this list. Based on how their major league careers have panned out so far, all of these 7 guys should have been on the Top 50 Hitting Prospect list for 2006:
Joey Votto
Brian McCann
Dan Uggla
Hanley Ramirez
Andre Ethier
Matt Kemp
Mark Reynolds (questionable)
2. When comparing John’s list to other 2006 lists (BA, BP, etc.) it strikes me that you see pretty much all of the same names on each list (admittedly in defferent postions). It illustrates how a herd mentality and scouting consensus runs rampant in the vast majority of the scouting reports and rankings that are published in magazines and on the net. Given how scouting baseball prospects is such an inexact science, I would hope that more sites and publications would take more of a maverick approach to their rankings and generate lists that don’t just include all of the usual suspects year-in and year-out.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
by Fla-Giant on Jan 27, 2026 1:34 PM EST reply actions
list
For these guys
Joey Votto
Brian McCann
Dan Uggla
Hanley Ramirez
Andre Ethier
Matt Kemp
Mark Reynolds (questionable)
What you would have to do is look in the book and see what I said about them.
by John Sickels on Jan 27, 2026 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
Right - I didn’t mean to imply that you had never written anything positive about them..
Just to be clear, I wasn’t criticizing you with my post - just the lack of others mentioning the obvious misses on the list (and anybody’s old list from any year for that matter). I think it’s great that you took the initiative and actually posted these 2 hitting and pitching threads, and hope you make it an annual offseason event. As I wrote above, one of the big things that I think is missing from the rating/ranking sites and publications is any type of introspection and transparency about the success/failure of previous ranking lists.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
by Fla-Giant on Jan 27, 2026 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
I’ll add that I think that John is hands-down the most transparent of all the prospect evaluators around.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
by Fla-Giant on Jan 27, 2026 7:03 PM EST up reply actions
A couple things:
(1) Brian McCann wasn’t prospect eligible, having already logged significant time in 2005.
(2) Just because those guys ended up better than expected doesn’t mean that they were improperly ranked (though it might, of course). Players with Dan Uggla’s profile typically don’t become Dan Uggla. It is certainly useful to look back and see what everyone “missed” on Uggla, but there is no way a guy left exposed in the Rule 5 should ever crack a top 50.
If another player were to be coming up today and match Uggla’s minor league career exactly, I would still bet against him. Prospect analysis is probabilistic, which means you are going to get low probability outcomes sometimes. It is to be expected.
by aCone419 on Jan 27, 2026 4:00 PM EST up reply actions
Right on McCann. I misread his PAs for Atlanta in 2005..
However,
If another player were to be coming up today and match Uggla’s minor league career exactly, I would still bet against him. Prospect analysis is probabilistic, which means you are going to get low probability outcomes sometimes
…there is no way a guy left exposed in the Rule 5 should ever crack a top 50.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. A miss is a miss. Any player that has put up Uggla’s major league stats over their first 5 seasons (WAR=14.9) should have been in the top 50. The only way to “properly” rate a prospect is to predict what type of a player they will be in the majors. That’s the whole added value that talent evaluators and scouting sites like this one, BA, BP and others are supposed to be providing. If they’re only just judging who has played the best in the minors, then I can do that myself mainly by just going through the stats and game reports.
The only excuse that I can see for missing on a ranking of a minor league prospect is if there was a major injury involved. In that case an evaluator can truly say that they ranked the prospect lower because they were unsure he could overcome the injury.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
by Fla-Giant on Jan 27, 2026 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
I think aCone's point is that if you had 100 guys with Uggla's MILB performance, only 1 becomes Uggla
So either you miss on Uggla, or you rank them all highly and have 99 busts on your lists.
by ozzman99 on Jan 28, 2026 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
Pitcher thread
I had this same request in the pitcher thread.
Thanks for 50 Great Years Bobby Cocks - (celebration cake from the US Senate)
by siddfynch on Jan 27, 2026 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
Why even pay attention to prospects?
At the time this list may have been OK if somewhat conformist.
But in hindsight it seems to be pretty much a disaster. And hitters are supposedly easier to predict than pitchers.
Not to denegrate anyone…… But why pay any attention to prospects at all?
by haven on Jan 27, 2026 8:22 PM EST reply actions
Just a very weird year
The position prospects for 2006 are a bit of an outlier/anomoly. Most lists did pretty well with pitchers and tanked on hitters.
I am rethinking the “hitters are easier to predict than pitchers” ideal. Personally I’ve had a much better success rate with pitchers looking at my dynasty leagues and it’s not really close. To be fair, I’ve dedicated much more time and energy to evaluating pitchers… but still. Hitters have not been a gimme over pitchers.
by slurve on Jan 27, 2026 11:30 PM EST up reply actions
This is pretty much exactly how its been for me
Unless the pitchers get hurt, they usually track pretty well. Lofgren and Fernando Cabrera have been the main exceptions (i.e., healthy players who bust).
Also, the 2006 top 20 hitters does seem like an anomaly. We should compare ’em to the Top 20 from 2005 and 2007.
Thanks for 50 Great Years Bobby Cocks - (celebration cake from the US Senate)
by siddfynch on Jan 28, 2026 12:59 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah
It’s gotten to the point where I harvest my pitching regularly and trade it for my deficencies with position players.
I still think this list is interesting in that a few of these perceived busts may still pan out - there seems to be some slow to get going development curves / and or we have become spoiled by Buster Posey.
by slurve on Jan 28, 2026 1:28 AM EST up reply actions
rethinking the "hitters are easier to predict than pitchers" ideal
I wonder whether that thinking was based on the unpredictability of pitchers breaking down or not breaking down. That is, its hard to predict whether a given pitcher will get significantly injured or not. But if they don’t get a career injury in the minors, perhaps their numbers are more reliable for forecasting MLB production than hitters numbers.
(Of course, this is pure speculation and I’ve done zero research and I don’t intend to do any either)
by siggian on Jan 28, 2026 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
Wtf happened with Hermida?
He’s STILL a guy who’s name I’ll see and go “maybe one day he’ll be one of those random good season guys.”
I really don’t get how he fell so far off a cliff like that.
by SenorGato on Jan 28, 2026 1:37 PM EST reply actions
He got invited to ST...
with the Reds. They have need for a starting LF. So, I gotta think he’ll be given a chance.
by Havok1517 on Jan 28, 2026 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
Which WAR to use ?
John -
If you’re using WAR for seasons 2002 and later, you should use the version from FanGraphs, not Baseball Reference. The defensive component of FanGraphs WAR (UZR) is more accurate than its counterpart from Baseball Reference (TZ/Rtot/Rfield).
by ReplacementLevel on Jan 30, 2026 12:21 PM EST reply actions
WAR
I used WAR from BR because Fangraphs was taking a good 2 minutes per page to load on my computer and I didn’t have the time to wait around.
by John Sickels on Jan 30, 2026 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
That happens sometimes.
If you get a chance, take a look at how differently the two WAR’s value Zimmerman defensively. It’s eye-popping.
by ReplacementLevel on Jan 30, 2026 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Start posting on Minor League Ball
- Minor League Ball on Facebook
- Follow @MinorLeagueBall
- Follow Minor League Ball on your iPhone!
- Subscribe to Minor League Ball Stories
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
+4 updates
Chicago Cubs Part Ways With Manager Mike Quade
Who Will Be The Next Cubs Manager?
Will Anyone Work For The Baltimore Orioles?
More from Baseball Nation >
Certain photos copyright © 2011 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.
