Serge

I think his 3rd offering is sort of a tweener split-change pitch, IIRC, and thus, that's why you see it listed both ways. Could be way off base, though. Oh okay, that would explain it. Thanks.

So is Shark's pitch a change or a splitter? I've heard it both ways and so I don't really know which to believe.

With Lee and Castro in our system, I think that makes the most sense. Might as well let LeMahieu get comfortable playing 2nd base in the minors instead of being switched later on in his career because of Lee or Castro(hopefully). Also, my understanding is that Lemahieu in terms of size speed is probably not going to handle SS. I think he's supposed to be in the Derosa kind of mold, where as a big leaguer he'll be ideal at 3b, acceptable at 2b, and "only in emergencies" at SS. LeMahieu will only be ideal at 3rd if he could develop some power. While young, it just hasn't happened, but he has such a solid swing that messing with that may not make much sense. Short of it is, I think his ideal spot is at 2nd, where the power isn't as significant an issue and he can be a solid defensive asset. When we drafted him, I thought he was similar to Flaherty, but I think he's a better contact hitter while Ryan has a bit more pop than I expected. If AzPhil is right and LeMahieu is fast tracked for 2nd base, maybe to Tennessee with Castro, that really puts Flaherty in a tough spot to impress. Ryan's very similar to DeRosa, and I could see a similar career path of sorts, former shortstop that becomes a supersub player that offers some pop early in his career, before maybe getting a chance to be a regular with a club later in his career. I meant just defensively on the Derosa comp, I should have made that clear, since it sounds like defensively his best fit will be 3b, although he should be fine at 2b and can maybe fill in at SS in a pinch. I agree with you that he definitely needs more power if he wants to be an everyday 3b though. I think a decent comparison offensively for Lemahieu if he doesn't develop the power would be Mark Loretta(.300/.360/.400). Which that's nice for a 2b, but that is definitely not enough offense for third. Although he is a pretty big dude, so hopefully he can develop some power.

With Lee and Castro in our system, I think that makes the most sense. Might as well let LeMahieu get comfortable playing 2nd base in the minors instead of being switched later on in his career because of Lee or Castro(hopefully). Also, my understanding is that Lemahieu in terms of size speed is probably not going to handle SS. I think he's supposed to be in the Derosa kind of mold, where as a big leaguer he'll be ideal at 3b, acceptable at 2b, and "only in emergencies" at SS.

I was always under the impression it was the other way around, plus slider and average curve. Also, I'm guessing Cashner got bumped with his rough August. The SL is really deep, so one bad month could be enough to get the bump I guess.

I think with how stacked the Southern League was this year Jackson probably won't make it. We'll probably get Cashner and then Jackson and Colvin as honorable mention types.

You don't want to extrapolate based on one league's top 20 list because 1) four BA writers work together to come up with the BA top 100, not just 1 writer like this list and 2) the league top 20s are based on what people saw of the prospects during their time in the league and not overall. That said, Ben Revere came in at 59 last year. Cool, thanks. For some reason, I didn't even think about the one writer versus four thing. On a side note, I'm sure there will be a Castro question or two, I wish someone would actually ask if he's a top 40-50 prospect for them this year. I doubt we'll hear anything about Vitters that we haven't heard before, but maybe something about either Jackson, Cashner, or Carpenter could get answered and give us something different on them. Maybe something on Searle as well? I wonder if he was even discussed for this list. I just asked "In your estimation, Starlin Castro is a top __ prospect" so hopefully he'll answer and we'll have a good idea.

Whats the IP one needs to qualify? Because Jay Jackson and Andrew Cashner both beat some ass and took some names in the FSL.

I doubt it. Not impossible, but I doubt it. I am almost certain that there are segments of BA still very high on Vitters, and I'm pretty sure it was Callis who said he thought Vitters should go 1 (in the MWL lists) recently. Also, keep in mind that, IIRC, their team lists are influenced by organizational sources, and I think the Cubs are still very high on Vitters internally (at least, that'd be my guess). I think him going to the AFL shows they're still very happy with him.

Even though they shouldn't have, I think they let his struggles at Daytona effect the rankings. No way MWL Vitters is a lesser prospect than Gordon or Hicks.

What a well crafted, articulate question :)

Wow

Wow, I didn't think Archer would make the list. And no Burke either is pretty pretty screwy.

I have a strange feeling BA will be heaping tons of praise on Starlin Castro and Hak-Ju Lee over the coming days. Both strike me as the kinds of guys BA writers tend to fall in love with (international signings, young, tools out the wazoo, good defensive reputations, etc.). I think Starlin has a very good chance to be a top 50 prospect for BA. I personally don't think he's that good, but BA loves toolsy shortstops who are young for their league. Last year Andrus was #37, and he put up similar numbers, although he was in AA the entire year compared to Castro. And tools-wise, they're pretty similar, with a little bit of an speed/defensive edge to Andrus and a little bit of a power edge to Castro. Also Alcides Escobar was #19, and he's the worst offensively of the 3 and the oldest. Although that might not be a fair comparison since apparently Escobar is a crazy good defensive shortstop.

Yeah, but the question is whether Bradley for ~100-120 games plus someone like Jake Fox for 40-60 is better than Rowand for 150 and someone like Jake fox for 10. And in a typical Milton Bradley year the answer to that is an overwhelming "Yes!" I assume you're talking about Jake Fox circa May, June, and July, and not Jake Fox circa August and September? You know, the Jake Fox that has batted .238 since July with 3 homers 17 RBI in 100 ABs? Doesn't look so overwhelming considering you can't even tell me what a 'typical Milton Bradley year' is... Give me a healthy Rowand, Fukudome, and Soriano with Reed Johnson and Sam Fuld backing them up. No, actually it doesn't refer to any specific Jake Fox, it doesn't even have to be Jake Fox. I just mean a decent backup outfielder. It can be a Colvin or Fuld or whoever who will have above average defense and below average hitting or Fox who's the opposite. As for a "typical Milton Bradley year" I'd have to say something like .290/.390/.480 since that's what he's put up the past 4 years. Think of it this way, since 2006 Bradley has hit .289/.398/.483 and averaged just over 400 PA's a year, and played a little above average D in RF according to UZR. Rowand over that time has hit .279/.341/.448 over 567 PAs a year and played a little above average CF defense. Now let's for the sake of argument say that our backup outfielders will put up a .280/330/.420 line and play average D. Over 650 PA's, Bradley plus the backups would put up .286/.366/.456 with average D in RF, Rowand and co. would put up .279/.340/.445 with average CF D in CF. So even using a conservative estimate for Bradley's playing time of 400 PA's(he averaged 491 the past two years), he still ends up helping the team more than Rowand. Now, I'll admit the difference isn't "overwhelming" like I said it was earlier, but when you consider Rowand's contract as opposed to Milt's I think it starts leaning a lot closer that way. Another thing to keep in mind is that if he take 2006 out it helps out Bradley even more.

Yeah, but the question is whether Bradley for ~100-120 games plus someone like Jake Fox for 40-60 is better than Rowand for 150 and someone like Jake fox for 10. And in a typical Milton Bradley year the answer to that is an overwhelming "Yes!"

Here you go:

This guy sure knows how to ask some good, hard hitting questions. :)

I think this is what it is too. I mean they had Shark regularly between 96-99, and he's more of a 91-94 guy as a starter.

Eric Byrnes hahaha Byrnes wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. The guy murders lefties and plays good D, he'd be like a super expensive Reed Johnson. Not ideal but if we're selling Bradley for pennies on the dollar we could do worse. Byrnes vs. lefties the last three seasons: 2009: .230/.278/.514 2008: .258/.333/.484 2007: .248/.331/.455 I wouldn't exactly say he "murders lefties". In 08 and 09 he's been hurt by hte BABIP gods a good deal, a .211 this year and a .265 last year. Murder was probably too strong but he's very good against lefties and is a good defender.

Eric Byrnes hahaha Byrnes wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. The guy murders lefties and plays good D, he'd be like a super expensive Reed Johnson. Not ideal but if we're selling Bradley for pennies on the dollar we could do worse.

Yeah, I'd say Vitters, Castro, Cashner are all probably locks. Jay Jackson should but I'm not sure if he actually will, and Brett Jackson and Hak Ju Lee are probably bubble guys. I agree that Carpenter and Burke are unlikely for this year, but definitely will if they keep performing next year.

Because their fans aren't as dumb as ours? people are really trying to blame the fans for this? I'd probably put it at something like 50% Bradley's fault, about 30% the media's, and about 20% the fans. Maybe fans shouldn't have booed him, but that doesn't mean he needed to run himself out of town. Ask Derrek Lee, Fukudome, etc. how they handled being booed in their first year. I didn't say Bradley was without blame. But the man had a target on his back from day one. Paul Sullivan was talking crap about him as far back as I believe it was the first televised spring training game. The fans got on him before the calender hit May. He's handled things poorly(he should have just shut himself away from the media) but he's definitely had to deal with way more crap than he should have.

Because their fans aren't as dumb as ours? people are really trying to blame the fans for this? I'd probably put it at something like 50% Bradley's fault, about 30% the media's, and about 20% the fans. That's really really stupid Thanks. Sorry that I don't think the majority of the fanbase acting like a bunch of 7 year olds don't deserve a decent share of hte blame. Bradley f'd up by putting his foot in his mouth, but he was baited by the media and the fans turned on him way too quickly.

Because their fans aren't as dumb as ours? people are really trying to blame the fans for this? I'd probably put it at something like 50% Bradley's fault, about 30% the media's, and about 20% the fans.