This subject came up in the NSBB Prospect Chat, particularly in the context of Jay Jackson versus Andrew Cashner. In one camp, those who supported Jay Jackson over Andrew Cashner made the case that, if Cashner became a top-flight reliever and Jackson became a 2-3 starter, Jackson would be more valuable since he would pitch more innings, be an above average starter, etc. However, the other camp made the case that a top-flight relief pitcher can be just as good as, if not better than, an average/above average pitcher. With Cashner, he has two devastating pitches in his fastball and slider. Not only does he profile as a closer/top-flight setup man as a reliever, but he profiles as a really good one. In other words, they would take a great relief pitcher over a very good starting pitcher. Granted, I think those same posters would take a great starting pitcher over a great relief pitcher. My point was mostly that Sickels falls firmly in the former camp. I tend to follow that particular line of thought, but the opposing viewpoint has given me food for thought. But isn't it still way too difficult to judge who can become a great relief pitcher? There's just a handful of them out there. If you are ranking prospects a guy who projects as a solid starter does so for a reason. Cashner still potentially projects as a very good starting pitcher, which should inflate his rankings, even if people think eventually he'll have to settle as a reliever. But if a guy is a reliever from the get go in the minors, then he's got a lot more to prove.