toonsterwu

My guess is that they wait things out unless a trade is on the cheap for them. There will be arms that slowly become available, perhaps guys with better upside. Originally, it was, what, Detwiler/Tepesch/Martinez/Ranaudo fighting for the 5th spot, so now, perhaps 2 of them get back in there (hey, maybe they say screw it, and give Ranaudo some looks to see if they can fix him ... I doubt it, but who knows). None of them are great options, but biding their time is probably the more prudent move. Also, they aren't show about using youngsters, so Alex Gonzalez could fit in at some point. Jake Thompson is probably another year away, and maybe Luke Jackson finally takes steps forward (although I doubt it). I actually like Alec Asher a bit more than the rankings (to be clear, not that much more, he is more of a 4/5 type starter), although he might be better suited in the pen if he wears down through the course of the year. Short of it is, barring an excellent trade, I'm hard-pressed to see them go out and get an end of the rotation type arm. Who knows, though. Jon Daniels has surprised with some moves in recent years.

craig, mildly curious how far away he is for you (as you note "long"). I don't think he's next for me (Caratini would be my next choice, and mid-teens is when I start going for high upside pen arms most of the times, so Rivero and some of the young arms are probably in the mix after Caratini for me, but Vogelbach is probably within a top 20 if I worked one out). I do agree with your base premises, as I noted above - as a corner guy who doesn't profile to the OF(unlike say, a Kyle Blanks), Vogelbach needs to mash, otherwise it becomes easy to find reasons to put guys over him, no matter if he puts up decent numbers. The issue is, the scouting reports still seem positive on him being an average hitter with plus power potential, but it doesn't come out in games (I half wonder if he might be a little too disciplined to tap into that power). Those reports are enough for me to keep him in the top 20, and hence consideration in these areas, but at a certain point, as you note, he's got to show it. I wonder if he might be more a left-handed version of Billy Butler, a guy who might find some use on AL teams that might need a cheap DH option. Still, we're sort of stuck with Vogelbach in the sense that we have to see if he can mash in AA, as it seems unlikely he has much value now, but if he fails to mash in AA, he'll probably never have much value. So, I do agree next year is sort of make-or-break for him. Playing it out in my head, it really wouldn't surprise me if Vogelbach eventually was one of those Mark Canha Rule 5 type picks, a guy an AL club plucks up thinking, hey, here's a decent bat, perhaps a possible cheap DH option that they could use for a few years. Hard to see Vogelbach ever protected unless his bat really ticks up a few notches on the power production front.

Well, UVA suffered it's first loss of the year on Nate Kirby's start ... and he was downright brilliant at times, but they lost 1-0. As noted, I thought UVA was a bit over-rated entering the year with so many offensive losses, along with the loss of key cog Joe McCarthy for a few months. There's been some other injuires (Robbie Coman/John LaPrise) that have thinned out UVA's roster so much that they went to the club team to look for 4 positional players to tryout and possibly add to the club (they were short of the 35 man limit by 6, so they had room). Still, depending on club guys ... not the best. If McCarthy gets back, it feels like McCarthy/Thaiss/Pavin Smith will give them a solid middle of the lineup, with Ernie Clement (possibly at 2nd, taking out Wilcox's bad bat?) and Kenny Towns giving the lineup a few extra pieces (and I think Robbie Coman can hit), so in time, the UVA offense may squeak into the solid territory. A lot of youngsters are struggling (namely, Adam Haseley), which might be good for their long-term development. The positives in all this is that the pitching is really that good. Kirby so far looks like he's trying to make a case for a Top 5 pick, and Connor Jones really looks like he's improved a ton. When your worst weekend starter is the steady Brandon Waddell, that's a nice thing. Sborz has been solid in the pen. I'm still curious about the weekday rotation gig, but with the weather early in the year, things have been moved around (Alec Bettinger got a start, but could certainly see other guys in the mix). Thankfully, for UVA, the schedule is relatively soft to start the year, so the pitching should be able to carry us awhile. Here's hoping guys get healthy and the lineup is able to push forward.

Let's see, two votes. First is Stinnett. I think he should've been on ahead of Tseng, and I think that there's a case for him ahead of Pierce Johnson (of course, I have Underwood ahead of them all). There's a lot to like - the potential for 3 above average pitches, perhaps plus, with some action on it. There's the potential for possibly a bit more, as he's a relatively raw college arm. The big, physical frame is nice, and the raw athleticism is also a positive. Then comes the tough part. I get the vote for Eloy Jimenez - the massive upside is a factor, but boy, he was so green last year. I like Carson Sands as an option as well. My gut feeling is that Vogelbach will hit, but the problem is, he's a guy who really has to murder the ball and prove it each year on account of position/body. He's sort of an odd "prove it" guy for me. I think of Kyle Blanks, who had a lot more pop, but never put it together (granted, not exactly a comp, as there are some distinct differences, Blanks was much taller, a bit more athletic). There's a lot of first basemen type that hit in the low minors, so I really want to see Vogelbach light it up in AA and show more pop. Otherwise, I think I am having a tendency to find an excuse to rank someone ahead of him. Zagunis could also be in the mix. I'll go with my initial feeling, and that's Victor Caratini. As noted, I'm a believer that there's a bit more pop (the away line with the Braves was solid, power-wise), and some pre-draft reports indicated the potential for a bit more pop. I vaguely recall some review suggesting that he might never tap into all his power, due to his swing (could be wrong on this), but he doesn't need a lot of pop - just enough. I think Caratini will hit enough, and it really comes down to if he develops defensively, and so far, it sounds good. A long ways to go, but he's an intriguing catching prospect with some offensive upside.

i'd assume South Bend. I wouldn't be surprised if they sent him to Myrtle Beach. I guess it would depend on how he shows in the Spring, but if he's healthy, perhaps they push him to warmer weather. Dunno, could see it either way, and oddly, I'm blocked from AzPhil reports where I am right now, so can't be certain if he's posted anything interesting.

I agree, maybe we are all drinking the kool-aide, but I really can't remember a time when the Cubs were this deep across the board. If we're strictly talking pitching, the prospect "status" of the guys back in, uh, I want to say 2003, was fairly ridiculous. Of course, as it often goes with pitching prospects, having 5 good ones doesn't mean much. ____________________ Total side note, but I'm a bit surprised at the votes for Tseng in comparison to Stinnett. If I was voting between those two, I would vote Stinnett easily, and I have bias for Tseng and against Stinnett (Maryland).

Vote's still Underwood. Much higher upside than Tseng while still being productive in full-season. Maybe he busts, but unless Tseng's velocity kicks up to reported numbers pre-Cubs days (where he supposedly zipped mid-90's ... I still say that those reports were perhaps true, but flawed in that there were times in International play where he was only coming in for an inning or two and could ramp it up) and his secondary stuff show more than the reports of average/above average, it's just hard to pick him, IMO, over Underwood unless he proves it up the ladder. I can sort of understand a Stinnett vote here (and as noted, I think there's a case for Stinnett over Pierce Johnson as well). That said, by most accounts, Stinnett's ceiling isn't higher than Underwood, he's 2 years older, and he's yet to get a full-season's work in.

That was a rumor? I've been traveling, so I missed some things. That said, while I think that rumor is somewhat ridiculous, I have long though Profar was a bit over-hyped coming up. He was an accumulation of across the board solid to above average tools, IIRC, without many plus tools (I really don't recall many people suggesting he had many plus tools, if any). If he put it together, yes, that's' a very, very valuable asset, but a lot of things have to click. [Of course, thinking about it, that's how I view Torres, although off the top, Torres probably, as of now, has better reviews tools-wise than I recall Profar having. I might be forgetting some reviews of Profar, though.].

Someone who followed more can probably make a better determination on Torrez (I'm assuming this is Daury we are talking about). My gut feeling is that I would rank Candelario higher on account of upside. On Zagunis, I think there's a solid case for him ahead of Candelario, particularly if you buy him as a backstop. Candelario's upside, if he taps into it, would blow both guys away, but last year didn't do him any favors. Zagunis lacks the ceiling, but probably has a higher floor, and if you buy him sticking behind the plate, a case could be made that his value there would trump Candelario for now until Candelario shows that he's taking steps forward.

Look, don't get me wrong, I like Johnson. I also get the idea of voting for Johnson. That said, those numbers, would, though, be somewhat my point as to why I have a hard time voting Johnson - his "improvement" still led to a 4+ walk rate, and last I checked the game logs, it wasn't like the 2nd half of the year was tilted walk wise (that is, it's not like he had several games with monster walk rates and some with none). Can he live with a high 3 to low 4 walk rate? The stuff is probably good enough that he can probably get a couple year's look with it as a starter, but long run, seems tough. Is it possible he develops like say, Chris Tillman did (a fairly decent comp, I think) than Chris Carpenter? Again, possible. Overall, though, I simply think Underwood has better upside (and I didn't follow that close this year to know if these reports are that accurate, so maybe those who followed a bit more have a better grasp and can argue against that notion), and Johnson just doesn't seem like he took a major enough step for me when he's what, 3 years older than Underwood? Everyone views things their own way, but I think Underwood's ceiling is better than Stinnett, Tseng, Sands, Steele, and he's had some performance record in the minors, so I think Underwood is a clear notch or two ahead of that foursome for me. Stinnett's the closest, but having watched him a few times at Maryland - I think there might be a bit more ceiling than most are acknowledging, but admittedly, he was erratic at times. He's a raw college senior, which makes it tough. Can his secondary stuff take a tick forward? My gut feeling on his final season at Maryland was that he caught a lot of people by surprise with his velocity and solid stuff, but it didn't feel like blow-away stuff, and watching his 2 games against UVA closely, it just didn't seem like plus stuff (yes, he notched, uh, 9 or 10 K's in that first one, but it never felt to me like the UVA hitters were definitely over-matched). Tseng's a prove it guy for me, much as I want to be biased in his favor for personal reasons. It seems like there's enough consistency in reporting that his stuff is fairly mediocre. He may end up being Hendricks to these guys with higher ceilings, but he's going to have to prove it up the ladder for me to justify a high ranking. I was that way about Hendricks, and it's a similar vein to my thinking on guys like Torreyes. That's just me on certain guys with certain profiles. Sands/Steele - haven't seen many people suggest huge ceilings for either guy, so I just can't put them ahead of Underwood when I think he has a better ceiling and has some performance record to go back on. Steele was also coming off, uh, back problems? Would like to see a full-season out of them before pushing them hard up the rankings. You may be right in a year - maybe Underwood has flamed out/maybe Sands/Steele have taken major steps forward (I mean, gut feeling ... I think Sands is a solid top 10 prospect next season on account of improvement (and not just graduations)).. I just have a hard time justifying placing guys that, as of now, I view as having lower ceilings ahead of a guy I view as having a better ceiling and at least some positive minor league performance records (and age-wise, is about the same ... off the top, isn't Underwood roughly Sands age?).

I'm voting for Underwood, although I think Underwood/Johnson/Stinnett are all close (to be clear, I may go with a position player to break up that trio). I like Johnson. I kept arguing last year that whatever ceiling advantage that Johnson had on CJ Edwards was minimized enough by Johnson's better frame and, IMO, suitability to be a starter at that point, and as such, I didn't think there was a huge gap between the two. I like Stinnett too. He's a fascinating, somewhat raw college arm in many respects, somewhat reminiscent of some of the guys from 2008. I think there's a case for him ahead of Johnson, but for now, I lean against it, as I'm not sure his ceiling is better than Johnson's and we know Johnson's pitches, even if he lacks the command, can play in AA. I sort of want to see how Stinnett's stuff shows this year before I jump on that. Most reports seem to place him as a mid-rotation ceiling, so it's hard for me to push him ahead of Johnson without a better ceiling. So, why Underwood over Johnson? I certainly get that Underwood's overall numbers weren't great. His command is still iffy. It's very possible that once he hits AA, Underwood could go the way of Johnson and have his command collapse. Johnson's command, though, was bad all year (sure it was horrid at the start, but it wasn't like he was good at the end). I think I'm wiling to buy the idea that Underwood is trending upwards due to how he finished the year, his age, and the indications that he showed better work ethic. Perhaps it all collapses and he comes back out of shape, but I guess, for now, I buy the idea that he's a kid maturing. Oh, the most important reason to top it off? I simply think Underwood has the best starting pitching ceiling in the system, and Johnson simply isn't polished enough as a starter for me to overlook it (to be clear, I think Pierce could probably step into the big league pen right now ... just his overall repetoire and command as a starter isn't there yet, IMO). There are never any perfect comps, but I view the Underwood situation more akin to Chris Archer, a youngster slowly putting it together, and I wonder, much as I like Pierce Johnson, if he may be more akin to someone like Chris Carpenter, another college arm with two plus pitches but lacked the command to stick. To be clear, I think Pierce is better than Chris, but I have enough nagging doubts on Pierce. I think my next four would be Underwood, Johnson, Caratini, and Stinnett as of now. I'm still of the opinion that Caratini has a bit more pop than he's shown, but he certainly has to show it next year.

An interesting UVA squad this year. I'm not that convinced that UVA deserves to be ranked that highly to start the year, but it is an excellent weekend rotation (Kirby/Jones/Waddell) with a top shelf closer talent (Sborz), and plenty of arms to fill out the pen and weekday slot. If Jones is that much better than last year, he might be the best arm on the staff and a possible 1/1 in 2016. Offensively, a lot of losses last year, but a solid freshman class of positional talent came in to help. Joe McCarthy out early may be a blessing in disguise, as it sort of forces the youngsters in early during the weaker part of the schedule. Supposedly Ernie Clement is looking great, and the same goes for Haseley/Pavin Smith, two freshmen expected to carry a load. Didn't follow enough in the summer/winter to know why John LaPrise was moved to full-time OF duty (and promptly got hurt to start the year), but I guess that might be a positive statement on Justin Wilcox as much as anything. This is a tourny team that could get better as the season moves along. The pitching can carry this club through any offensive struggles, so on paper, it should be a possible Omaha team. Draft wise, Kirby looks like a first rounder. Waddell/Sborz ... tough to tell. Not impossible that a strong season from Sborz pushes him into 1st round territory, but I'd guess both are in that 2nd-5th round range. McCarthy is a top 5 round guy if he comes back and is on. Not sure where LaPrise falls now (last season, would've said he was a top 6-8 round guy for sure). I forgot Daniel Pinero was draft-eligible, and if his increased size leads to better pop, he could be a fascinating guy, although I doubt he's a 6'4" shortstop. May be Ryan Flaherty-esque? ACC looks weaker this year, from the little that I've skimmed.

Almora, for reasons listed in the previous threads Behind Almora, I would go with the upside of Underwood over Johnson, as I think Underwood's ceiling is better, and I'm a touch hopeful that last season was legitimate progress. Some combination of Johnson/Stinnett/Caratini would likely compete after that.

I'm sort of against that if time permits. I'm mildly curious where the votes would go. My guess is that yes, the other guy would likely grab the 7th spot, but I am curious about it as it sort of is a telling mark on how the community feels about guys to see the individual vote patterns per slot (considering we aren't doing multiple votes).

I should be clear ... I was a) the comparison to Markakis was made in reference to what Markakis became as he aged, and not what he was, or was supposed to be. He was supposed to be a top level corner OF who could hit for average and power, which he was in his early years. Whether it was his injuries, or swing changes (or more likely, a combination of both), Markakis' power fell. Off the top, I believe Markakis as a prospect was a top 50 type prospect (he was around the same time as Jeremy Hermida, and both were supposed to be a part of the next wave). I don't think McKinney is the prospect, as of now, that Markakis was. b) I do think McKinney, if all goes well, could perhaps fall in that 12-17 HR range a year. Certainly, if he can do that, or if he hits for a high average and smashes a healthy number of doubles, he would be a fine major leaguer. My note on power though, is that, I think the mediocre power projections for him, combined with a likelihood to move to LF, would make me want to see him produce up the ladder to rank him high. I guess it's somewhat similar to how I felt on Torreyes and Bruno, the latter being a personal favorite. That's me, though. I think I'm being relatively consistent to how I've always felt about "types" of guys (everyone has personal favorites here and there that sway views). It's certainly possible that I'm being a touch unfair to McKinney's ceiling, and as noted, I'm not sure Torres isn't being a touch over-hyped, but if I'm picking between the two, that's how my thought process would go.

Alright, runoffs take a lot of time, and we're bound to run into several the deeper we go. Thus, while I voted for Almora initially, I am changing my vote to see if we can avoid a runoff this early (I'm also with runoffs this high as there might be a tendency to simply plop those two guys down next, and I am always curious enough to want to see how votes would fall ... put it this way, I'm curious how many of the Torres/McKinney voters would necessarily go to the other for a subsequent vote). I like McKinney. I think he can find a role in the majors. Offensively, the lack of power hurt, but Nori Aoki and Nick Markakis have found careers in the bigs. I don't think he's a centerfielder, and thus I'm left in a box with McKinney. I really need to see him produce up the ladder to justify ranking him high. I almost wonder if we're hyping Torres up a bit too much. That said, shortstop prospects with solid tools and good performance are intriguing, and if I ranked Marco Hernandez high back in the day off of Arizona rookie reports (as much as people thought I was off my bonkers with Marco, go back and look at the reports out of Arizona back then ... actually, that old thread is probably still in the database where I linked to several of the BA comments on him), then I'd be a hypocrite to not consider Torres highly as well (and I think he's far better than Marco out of Arizona. McKinney simply isn't that much further along for me to go with him over Torres, and while I understand the votes for McKinney, my vote switch goes to Torres.

First off, I'm really not in love with Almora. Never really have been. As someone noted above, he's somewhat another broad-based tools guy in that, only his defense is really plus (and if he ever gains weight, that could sink fast, since it's not like he had plus speed). There's a lot I don't really love about Almora. Of course, as with discussions on Torres, if you get all the broad-based tools to develop, then a guy who hits for a solid average, has average pop, has above average defense to plus in CF, and so forth is quite valuable. That said, by most indications, he's shown solid natural ability and I haven't heard anything bad about his work ethic. While he was probably rushed to AA, he's awfully young for the level, and it's not like he was over-matched in A+ (although I am somewhat of the camp of preferring to see a guy excel at a level before moving him up). There hasn't been any tools degradation, and the ceiling is largely viewed the same. It's not like he has a Brett Jackson bat speed/coverage issue. He'll never be a high walk guy, but he strikes out far less than Alcantara did in the minors. If he gets back to say, 5-6% walk rate, I think he'd be fine. Perhaps the guy simply needed to experience big time failure to realize he had to adjust his approach. In all honesty, looking at the names, I really don't see a huge gap from 5 to roughly 15. As for Underwood, admittedly, what I talked myself into last night, and still feel this way as of now, is that he has a) shown production improvement (as Tim notes) ... in particular, I like that his walk rate declined from the previous season b) shown work ethic improvement (by most accounts, he came into 2014 in excellent shape) c) excellent frame d) even if you think Kiley's review was a bit too positive (he essentially thinks there's an outside chance for 3 plus pitches), this is at least mid-rotation stuff with top velocity for a starter. It's enough to hope on. I can understand that a) He really needs to dominate a full year b) Wish he had a weapon to get more groundballs c) Command is still shaky/a concern I just think it's enough to hope on from a rankings perspective. Again, fully acknowledge that the gap in this tier of guys is awful close, so this could be considered nitpicking a bit.

For me, it's not only that Almora was bad. It was the manner in which he was bad. A 1.4% walk rate is really hard to do. I do agree that the Cubs were pushing him to the point where he would have to improve his approach in order to succeed. I agree that he could very easily pop way up in this list by mid-season, let alone next year. I'm not dropping him far down the list - as I said, he'll be in my next group of three guys. Given that I'd consider all of them to be top 100 prospects in the game, that isn't really an insult at all. As for Torres, I'm curious how you interpret Kiley's statement in the manner that you do. That seems to be talking pretty highly about current value for those tools as a 17 year old (all verbs are present tense). Combine that with an approach at the plate that Almora could only dream about and it is pretty easy to dream there. First off, I'm not knocking Torres. 2nd, Kiley's been fairly clear when he feels a guy has plus tools. Admittedly, I haven't read all his fangraphs reviews, but he seems very affirmative when noting plus tools. The fact that he doesn't note multiple plus tools, or the potential to develop plus tools stands out (unless I'm mistaken, his little plus marks next to FV projections indicates if he believes a guy's FV tools might be better than he's currently anticipating). I know a couple other places, off the top, seemed to have slightly better reviews on tools than Kiley, but it's not like anyone's saying he has a plus-plus tool, or multiple plus tools. This doesn't mean I don't think he can succeed. In all honesty, much as I liked Arismendy back in the day, I never loved him as a MLB hitter (and I think I've been fairly clear in noting that, although a part of me would love to see him give a full run of 450-500 AB's to prove me wrong), and while it's early, I think I feel much more comfortable thinking Gleyber will reach the bigs than I did of Alcantara when he had his breakout in 2012. The former's reached the bigs, so again, any discussion on this is really focused only a rankings perspective (and hence only on discussion). It's just, these aren't monster tools. It's a broad base of solid tools to work with, and if he sticks at short, a broad-based tools shortstop, a guy who hits for average, has some pop, has a great approach, can steal some bases would have immense value. Still, it feels like a guy I want to see perform in full-season before ranking him over, in this case, a guy with a higher ceiling in a higher level. Anyhow, that's me.

A bit surprised at the total lack of votes for Underwood, and I'm mildly curious why. He's shown command improvement since he's gotten into the system. The delivery is supposedly cleaner, now. Sure, he needs to get better. He's shown improvement, and he's athletic, so at this stage, I'm leaning more hopeful on the capability to adjust. Yes, there was the weight gain issue, but every youngster's done boneheaded things before, and he showed up in great form this year. The upside is a top of the rotation type arm. I mean, we're talking one of the highest upsides in the entire system in some respects, a potential "1" level upside if things go just a tiny bit better than people expect (changeup ticks up, command ticks up). No, I didn't vote for him here, just surprised at the lack of discussion/love for him. Prior to thinking about it right now, I was thinking he'd be borderline top 10 for me, but I keep going back to the improvement and the ceiling.

McKinney's limited power projection puts him behind Torres for me Edwards' injury and stamina questions puts him behind Torres for me Almora's disastrous 2014 puts him behind Torres for me Those are going to be my next three guys in some order. I'm randomly picking a quote, so this isn't meant to be directed at Tim ... but I'm a little surprised at the amount of support for Torres this high, and the lack thereof for Almora, and I've never really loved Almora. It's not like Torres has jump of the chart tools/ceiling. I mean, just taking one review, but Kiley had him without really a plus tool. As far away as he is, and with minimal plus tools, I'm a bit surprised we're getting this excited (granted these votes don't really tell the story on excitement, but I'm just a bit curious about the disparity). Yes, Almora was bad ... but he's only 21 this year (to be fair on the Torres, comments, the fact that he did what he did at age 17 is amazing ... ). He's been rushed up a tiny bit, IMO, but the tools are still there. It's not like there's been tools degradation or exposure of some sort - the issue is discipline/approach, and I tend to think he should be given a chance to adjust. One wonders if they pushed him because they thought he needed to get exposure to significant failure. I just don't recall many bad reviews on this kid's head/willingness to learn, and at his age, I'm a bit surprised that the voting has gone the way it has for 5. (fully acknowledge that the gap from 5 to say, 15 might not be huge, and this commenting on vote disparities here can be viewed as somewhat nitpicking).

Without reading through any other comments or seeing the poll results (which could always sway my vote somewhat if a preferred choice wasn't likely to win and I had to decide between two secondary guys) - Rule out immediately - Mejia (uh he's with Arizona, right?), Rivero (may be a good righty pen arm, but you'd have to convince me he's Mariano Rivera reincarnated to go for him here - personal choice as to how I feel on ranking closers more than anything), Sands/Cease/Steele (nice arms, but they lack monstrous ceilings for me to really go with any of them this high when they are far away), Candelario (I like him, and still think the upside is there, but with our fairly deep system, you've got to do better than what he did last year), Corey Black(don't buy him as a starter, and see Rivero), Jimenez (too raw, too far away, not enough production yet) That leaves a manageable 10, and barring a significant change in my thought (not impossible), I'd guess at least my next 6 or so would be from that list (as I assume it would be for most). Almora - the ceiling is still viewed to be what it was - a plus defensive centerfielder with average, perhaps above average, pop. His approach was exposed in AA, though, and it wasn't great to begin with, as he's fairly aggressive. Still ... reminds me, offensively, a bit of Alcantara and as much as I was never huge on him, I do feel comfortable thinking he should be able to make some changes and succeed in AA. Blackburn - just not sure the ceiling is good enough here. Ceiling seems to be a better Kyle Hendricks - a type of guy that's really hard for me to rank high unless they keep deliveriing up the ladder. Caratini - If there's some semblance of average-ish pop and he improves behind the plate, he would really zoom up people's lists. Count me in the camp of buying that there's potentially average-ish pop. Edwards - Ceiling's always been great, but frame and durability have been the questions. Johnson - I really like Johnson, but I can't ignore the obvious command concerns. Still, 2 potential plus pitches, solid frame, and it's not like he's a scattershot arm (that is, it's not like he regularly misses the catcher's mitt)... any improvement command wise (think say, how Chris Tillman improved) and that mid-rotation ceiling is quite possible. McKinney - There's a lot to like, a sweet stroke. I just don't think he's a CF, and I'm not sure there's enough pop as a corner OF. You know he feels like to me ... Nick Markakis. There's definitely use for a guy like that. Stinnett - I guess there's the positives to being a relatively raw college arm - there's additional room to hope for more. Add in the immense improvement he's made in 1 year, and there's a lot to like. Good athlete, solid frame. I honestly want to talk myself into ranking him above Pierce Johnson, as I feel he's a similar profile arm. Gleyber Torres - That was an awesome start. Still ... some of these reports seem to suggest that he doesn't have a monster ceiling. Underwood - Is he rounding into form? If so, a strong start in 2015 could give him a shot at the bigs in 2016 at some point. He arguably has the highest ceiling of any arm in the system. Vogelbach - Great finish, but he's a first baseman and he's going to need to mash his way up the ladder. If he does, and the in-game power keeps developing, then he'll zoom up top 100 lists. But he's sort of in that prove it mode to me due to position. Thinking about it, I'm taking out Vogelbach, Blackburn, Johnson, Stinnett. Torres doesn't seem to have that monster ceiling, and McKinney may be a tweener (offensively and defensively), so as intriguing as they are, they are out for now. Caratini doesn't need to have a lot of pop to be a valuable catching asset, but he needs to show more pop to rank this high on this year's list, which he hasn't. That leaves Almora/Edwards/Underwood for me. I want to talk myself into one of the arms, as I'm not huge on Almora, but Edwards really needs a full-season's work under his belt to convince me, and Underwood needs to show that was a breakthrough. I really don't love Almora (don't hate him either, just don't love him), but the ceiling still seems solid and I gotta buy that a kid that's in AA already should be given a chance to adjust/learn before I get too down on him, and he gets my nod here. More I think about it, more I think Almora/Alcantara have some offensive similarities.

By no means am I saying I would vote for him at 5, but looking at the list of names left after Schwarber, I'd argue that Victor Caratini could be in the mix for discussion purposes. Stinnett is a fascinating arm and reminds me a bit of the 08 draft - athletic college arm that might still have a tiny bit of potential to add more (rather than "just refining") since he's relatively raw to full-time pitching. I mean, there's a case that, much as I like Pierce Johnson, that there's enough known about his limitations that Stinnett's unknown aspect might be tempting enough to jump him. Back to Caratini a moment - I recall, before the trade, he had splits that indicated that he hit for some power away from uh, what was the Braves affiliate last year, Rome?, and if I recall correctly, Rome limited HR's a bit (looking at the slash line away while with the Braves, it was .279/.367/.455 in 154 AB's). Pre-draft reports suggested there was some pop. By no means am I saying he has plus power, but if he can develop, say, 10-15 HR pop, he could be interesting if the contact ability is still solid and he improves behind the plate). The reports seem really negative on his power, and I'm just a bit curious if he can tap into a bit more. There's enough of a jam in that 7-14 area that I really wouldn't have a problem arguing for him in the 7-10 range. You know, thinking about his offensive profile right now, he mildly (again, mildly) reminds me of one of our two final draft and follows in Jovan Rosa. I kept hoping Rosa might be able to get a bit more loft, and it never really happened, but I remember being utterly fascinated with Jovan Rosa in Low A after he hit 40+ doubles and 7 HR's. I say this to acknowledge that I can certainly see a situation where Caratini's bat just ... stays there (although unlike Rosa, he seems to have enough skills behind the plate to move forward at least another level or two, and he has better contact skills/better approach than Rosa had). Anyhow, this is a total tangent.

I would like to make a case against Schwarber's bat upside, but I simply can't. Almora and Edwards are closest, but I need a full season from Edwards to really leap him over Schwarber. Almora ... you know, perhaps there's a case here. It's not as if his offensive/defensive upside is poor - I mean, if he reaches his ceiling of being a plus defensive CF with 15-20 HR power and Schwarber moves off catcher, Schwarber would really need to mash to overtake him. Still, I just have those lingering doubts on Almora, although I think he'll likely end up walking more as he adjusts his approach. The others are too far (Underwood/Torres), don't have enough ceiling (Pierce Johnson/Dan Vogelbach), or have questionable projections for my tastes (McKinney). I expect this to be a Schwarber runaway, and I am curious how things fall after that for folks.

I still have some doubts as to what Russell's position would be long-term in a "perfect world" scenario (which this isn't ... ), and I get the argument that the combination of bat upside, solid defensive right field capability, some level of safety in MLB performance, and improved nutrition makes Soler appealing, but the vote for me would be Russell (and to be quite honest, I probably even have some really mild concerns on Russell's bat). That said, an upper level, potential shortstop with plus offensive potential, and particularly, plus power, is just too tantalizing to pass up here. Soler simply has too high of a hurdle, in my mind, to jump that, as his offensive potential projections aren't that much better than Russell's. I think there's a decent argument for Russell against Bryant (although I would still rank Bryant first), but he's simply too tantalizing an asset to pass here. I do think we can probably lump Soler next and just move on to 4, but that's obviously up to Tim. Mildly curious who voted for Vogelbach (and I guess Torres, but Vogelbach was the more extreme of the two).

I get why McKinney is in a top 100 list, but I fall more in line with where Kiley places him. I'm going to be curious where Stinnett is next year.