Tim

Any particular reason you have Veal behind those other guys? Yeah. 1) he's one of the guys I haven't seen yet. I haven't seen Pawelek yet, either, but there weren't as many questions about him. I just generally have a harder time rating guys I haven't seen. 2) There were a lot of questions about consistency with Veal coming out of the draft. Guys like that usually end up at one end or the other. I'd like to see that he's better able to repeat over time before moving him up the list. 3) The other guys ahead of him (except Pawelek) are all significantly more proven. In Pawelek's case, his ceiling is what drives him up the list.

I should have entered. I believe I would have scored 173.

Here's the rest of what I rated: 11. Marmol 12. Nolasco 13. Gallagher As I said to the others, there's a pretty significant dropoff after these guys. However, I could put any of those three being in the top 10 and defend it pretty well. Not a fan of Veal or Moore? They'd be in my next grouping, but they're a good bit behind these guys in my mind.

I have to admit a certain inconsistency in my rankings this year. I put Pie, Guzman and Pawelek up there because of the ceilings they possess. But I knocked Dope and Harvey further down the list despite their ceilings because of my doubts about their being able to reach those ceilings without improving their plate discipline / pitch recognition. I've tried to be more consistent about these things before, but then again, I usually give myself until March to get these things straightened out. I've always put my list out after I get a chance to see the guys in Arizona in the spring and see who's put on a few pounds (or taken them off), play in scrimmages, etc. Then I have plugged that information into a systematic way of combining stats, progression of stats, information from scouting reports, information from first hand sources in previous years and my own eyes into a weighted ranking system. The system has changed every year, but at least there's been a system. There's a lot of gut feel in this year's ranking as no system was used. I do, however, have good reasons why I can justify each of those guys over each other. It's just that some of those reasons may not make sense when taken as a whole. :D In particular on Guzman...if he's healthy, I think he's going to push someone out of the rotation around June. Call me crazy, but I think this is the year he gets over the hump and stays on the bump. That player might well be Wood. If the Cubs are willing to eat a few million, they could trade him to a team looking for a closer at current prices! My feeling is that if Wood is healthy enough to pitch effectively, he's going to be more use as a starter.

I don't know about the points, but I'm really glad I put out my list before I saw BA's this year.

Hard to pass them out until after the fact, though. back to the topic... He's had so many injury problems the last couple years, I think it's really tough to tell what he'd do if he were completely healthy. I believe the list is back, leg and hand injuries. I'll admit to have been a very big supporter of getting him. I don't know if his game just doesn't play in MLB or if the injuries have done him in. But at this point he seems to be a gamble that we don't need to take.

Here's the rest of what I rated: 11. Marmol 12. Nolasco 13. Gallagher As I said to the others, there's a pretty significant dropoff after these guys. However, I could put any of those three being in the top 10 and defend it pretty well.

You'll just have to take my word for it. That's really Bruce. It was really Len Kasper, too. And Jim Callis. And, well, you get the picture. But how do we know you're really Tim? :wink: How do you know you are really you? I wear a nametag at all times We are really desperate for anything to happen now. We have gone down to the depths of not knowing who anyone really is. How do we know that everyone on this earth is not just multiple personalities of a single person and that everyone we see is just a figment of that person's imagination? SCARY really if you think about it... I don't think philosophers have ever been able to prove that there is any objective reality, have they? Maybe Aquinas. Maybe. I'll have to find my book to look it up, but most argue for the concept of subjectivity and relativity when it comes to the world around us. Philosiphers would make lousy baseball scouts/GM's. I thought Aquinas' argument relied upon the presence of God.

I can temporarily suspend members and we have done so upon occasion. The tough part is remembering to reinstate them because there's no mechanism to automatically do that. I don't post under any pseudo's, though when we did the first interview with Callis I registered several of them and asked questions under those names because I was embarassed at how few people we had posing questions back then. The only one I've ever used to post with is my old cubs.com name - SanClementeFan. However, that is usually when I'm testing a feature and I want to see what it looks like for a non-mod/admin.

You'll just have to take my word for it. That's really Bruce. It was really Len Kasper, too. And Jim Callis. And, well, you get the picture. But how do we know you're really Tim? :wink: How do you know you are really you? I wear a nametag at all times We are really desperate for anything to happen now. We have gone down to the depths of not knowing who anyone really is. How do we know that everyone on this earth is not just multiple personalities of a single person and that everyone we see is just a figment of that person's imagination? SCARY really if you think about it... I don't think philosophers have ever been able to prove that there is any objective reality, have they?

I'm sure that's all true but I still like a him better than a soft tossing lefty that doesn't strike anybody out. That much is certainly true. BTW - I'd love to have Piggy prove me wrong. He's a local boy and everything.

Twice, actually. Not that I was counting. :D

Piggy gets a 2 out of 3 ranking on the three true outcomes. He generates a lot of K's. He doesn't really walk that many guys. But he has had a history of giving up too many HR. So that's one strike against him. Another is the general history with soft-tossing guys with a good feel and good breaking stuff. They do very well at the lower levels where there are a lot of free swingers and where not many guys know how to hit a well-placed breaking ball. These pitchers tend to get eaten up as they make the jump to the PCL where there are a lot of experienced hitters and have the odds stacked seriously against them in moving to the majors. So, even though they put up good numbers in the lower minors, people don't get excited about them because of this history. Carmen was able to keep up the strikeout rate in AAA, but also had a lot of guys laying off the breaking stuff (which increased his walk rate). Also, those 6 HR in 47 IP is a definite concern. He's got a chance to make it as a lefty specialist, but it is very doubtful that he'll ever get serious consideration for a rotation spot.

You'll just have to take my word for it. That's really Bruce. It was really Len Kasper, too. And Jim Callis. And, well, you get the picture. But how do we know you're really Tim? :wink: Now that I can't make any promises about!

Everyone feel free to pose any questions you may have to any of us and we'll answer as best we can.

You'll just have to take my word for it. That's really Bruce. It was really Len Kasper, too. And Jim Callis. And, well, you get the picture.

Sorry, OO. I just included the writers for the site and UK, who I keep trying to convince to be a writer.

I have to admit a certain inconsistency in my rankings this year. I put Pie, Guzman and Pawelek up there because of the ceilings they possess. But I knocked Dope and Harvey further down the list despite their ceilings because of my doubts about their being able to reach those ceilings without improving their plate discipline / pitch recognition. I've tried to be more consistent about these things before, but then again, I usually give myself until March to get these things straightened out. I've always put my list out after I get a chance to see the guys in Arizona in the spring and see who's put on a few pounds (or taken them off), play in scrimmages, etc. Then I have plugged that information into a systematic way of combining stats, progression of stats, information from scouting reports, information from first hand sources in previous years and my own eyes into a weighted ranking system. The system has changed every year, but at least there's been a system. There's a lot of gut feel in this year's ranking as no system was used. I do, however, have good reasons why I can justify each of those guys over each other. It's just that some of those reasons may not make sense when taken as a whole. :D In particular on Guzman...if he's healthy, I think he's going to push someone out of the rotation around June. Call me crazy, but I think this is the year he gets over the hump and stays on the bump.

They did the NL Central much later last year. This year it is the second division they're doing the top 10's for.

Each year, we release a top 30 (or so) prospect ranking here at NSBB. One comment that we've received is that we should put ours out before Baseball America so that there's no possibility of us "cheating" by looking at their rankings before performing ours. So, this year, our prospect committee is putting out our top 10's before BA does their thing. We haven't yet had time to pull together our comments and everything else that will go into the full list come springtime. But we wanted to get something out quickly, so enjoy! Here's the article.

I like to think all Cub fans are part of a family. A bitter and cynical one, but family nonetheless. Are you implying I'm a Cardinals fan incognito? I wasn't implying anything. I was merely asking a question about a curious inconsistency in your writing. I actually thought the most likely explanation was that you are located in China and english pronouns can be difficult. However, you seem otherwise very fluent and so it seemed curious. I guess you being a cards fan would be another explanation, now that you mention it...

I'm all for this move, but not at this cost for either player. That being said, I doubt it'll happen. It has to be bogus. P.S. - Since Furcal would be one of the first FA signings, can you imagine how much money Boras would then want for Damon? Or how much Giles could command? Talk about screwing not only yourselves, but all of MLB. Exactly. The FA market has not shown to be a bell curve, more like the foot of a cliff. Don't you think Eyre and Howry would be demanding more money if we hadn't signed them before Ryan's insane deal? Maybe Hendry realizes he needs to overwhelm Furcal with a deal NOW. Hendry's not an idiot, and we have money. Just out of curiosity, but why do you sometimes refer to the Cubs as "ours" and "we", then in other posts refer to them as "your" Cubs?

Didn't the SunTimes say Pudge was a Cub too? I think the Score said something like it, but I don't think any newspapers reported it. Not 100% sure though. Yeah, the Score picked up on the ITI note (or it may have been the other way around) and reported the same thing from the same bogus AZ radio source.

That's also something that they're not really supposed to do, btw. Unless they took those pictures themselves, those were almost certainly copyrighted images.

I thought it was them who said that about Brownlie. But I didn't want to put it out there and falsely accuse them. Can Bobby even throw a fastball at 95 anymore? Nope. This just smacks of the whole pudge incident, too. They reported that he had signed based on an "Arizona radio station report" and pretty much guaranteed it was a done deal. That was when Steve Holley still ran the show there, but it looks like things haven't changed at all. As for the Yahoo thing, ITI has an RSS feed that Yahoo picks up automatically. I've been meaning to set one of those up for NSBB, but we haven't been writing too many front page articles lately anyway!