Clifton and De La Cruz are in a different stratosphere than a guy like Kellogg. They both have higher than 6th starter upside. Paulino has much better stuff and has shown quite a bit of improvement from last year. I'm not an Underwood fan currently, but he's actually younger than Kellogg and has upside that Kellogg doesn't. Zastryzny is still going to be prospect eligible. I doubt he's ever a starter for us, but I'd say his chances are greater than Kellogg's are. Tseng is a pitchability type that is 2 levels ahead of Kellogg and is younger, plus put up as good as, or better of an A Ball season at 20, than Kellogg did this year. Those 7 are guys I'd definitely put ahead of Kellogg, along with the low level guys like Albertos, Manuel Rondon, maybe Erling Moreno, and a few drafted guys. Hatch, for sure, with a possibility on Miller, Clark, and Mekkes, depending on any reports that are interesting. We can agree to disagree, but I think you're making the same mistake as Law of overvaluing traditional stuff. To spin it in the opposite direction as Kellogg, I have no idea what to do with Cease, because I'm incredibly pessimistic on him being much of an MLB starter, but other teams will clearly value the velo enough to see if he can figure out how to hit the strike zone a few times every at bat. But more to the point, Clifton and De La Cruz might be better prospects(gun to my head I probably have both of them in front of Kellogg right now), but there isn't a huge gap between them and the Kelloggs of the world. That's part "there are no special pitchers", part "The Cubs have no special pitchers", and part "Kellogg is checking all the boxes of someone who can succeed without insane stuff".