<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Baseball America&#8217;s Top 10</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.futureredbirds.net/2011/11/22/baseball-americas-top-10/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2011/11/22/baseball-americas-top-10/</link>
	<description>Baseball&#039;s Future in the Gateway City</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 00:09:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: PJ</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2011/11/22/baseball-americas-top-10/comment-page-1/#comment-55357</link>
		<dc:creator>PJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 19:48:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8447#comment-55357</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[His year as top prospect was flanked by years where Jimmy Journell and Blake Hawksworth were the top prospects. 

Wasn&#039;t Lynn minor league pitcher of the year in 2009? 

I think they are very similar]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>His year as top prospect was flanked by years where Jimmy Journell and Blake Hawksworth were the top prospects. </p>
<p>Wasn&#8217;t Lynn minor league pitcher of the year in 2009? </p>
<p>I think they are very similar</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zuke354</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2011/11/22/baseball-americas-top-10/comment-page-1/#comment-55343</link>
		<dc:creator>zuke354</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:37:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8447#comment-55343</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[1)  My statement was a knock on the &quot;Never draft a college second baseman&quot; strategy. My point would be had thye played him at Short, why should that have influenced his value. Because with this philosophy, ability is secondary to college positioning.

2) There are always HS arms available every year. And its a similar argument every time the cards don&#039;t pick one. And actually, as I stated before, drafting is a balance. I also think you also need to go for the high upside. Just not everytime. I also would not have picked Porcello becaue I am against giving HS pitchers Major league contracts.

a) I agree its not always correct to take the safe pick. That was my point. There are times to be conservative and times to be agressive. With one late rounder in 75 picks, it was best to stay conservative. With Multiple first rounders, its better to go aggresive.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1)  My statement was a knock on the &#8220;Never draft a college second baseman&#8221; strategy. My point would be had thye played him at Short, why should that have influenced his value. Because with this philosophy, ability is secondary to college positioning.</p>
<p>2) There are always HS arms available every year. And its a similar argument every time the cards don&#8217;t pick one. And actually, as I stated before, drafting is a balance. I also think you also need to go for the high upside. Just not everytime. I also would not have picked Porcello becaue I am against giving HS pitchers Major league contracts.</p>
<p>a) I agree its not always correct to take the safe pick. That was my point. There are times to be conservative and times to be agressive. With one late rounder in 75 picks, it was best to stay conservative. With Multiple first rounders, its better to go aggresive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2011/11/22/baseball-americas-top-10/comment-page-1/#comment-55305</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8447#comment-55305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Forsch your exactly correct on this.  I&#039;m not sure when Lohse signed but a Porcello type pick would have made a Lohse or Westbrook type contract unnecessary. 7 mil for a guy who is pretty much guaranteed to be at least a 5th starter and thats if he is a huge disspointment is alot more cost effective than paying Lohse 12 mil dollars a year for 4 years.

Wong was a good pick in our case but still hat passing on Big Arms.   I was a pitcher and if someone as talented as Guerriri in available we should take that type of player more often than not.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Forsch your exactly correct on this.  I&#8217;m not sure when Lohse signed but a Porcello type pick would have made a Lohse or Westbrook type contract unnecessary. 7 mil for a guy who is pretty much guaranteed to be at least a 5th starter and thats if he is a huge disspointment is alot more cost effective than paying Lohse 12 mil dollars a year for 4 years.</p>
<p>Wong was a good pick in our case but still hat passing on Big Arms.   I was a pitcher and if someone as talented as Guerriri in available we should take that type of player more often than not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2011/11/22/baseball-americas-top-10/comment-page-1/#comment-55302</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 03:45:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8447#comment-55302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I wish you would if theres more information there it would be great to access it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish you would if theres more information there it would be great to access it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Forsch31</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2011/11/22/baseball-americas-top-10/comment-page-1/#comment-55299</link>
		<dc:creator>Forsch31</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 02:42:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8447#comment-55299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[1--You asked me why would it increase Wong&#039;s draft value if Hawaii played him at short. Your statement sounded like Wong was capable of playing there, when he&#039;s not. What you&#039;re suggesting doesn&#039;t happen--the drafted shortstops you mention, those who are judged at the time of the draft as players who will not stick at their position, usually are not judged as a high upside pick in the first place. Their draft value is hurt by their projected inability to play their drafted position. If a team drafts a quality defensive shortstop, they&#039;re not going to do it with the idea of moving him to second as soon as he turns pro. Second basemen at the major league level are a dime a dozen; shortstops are not (which is why a broken down Jack Wilson currently has a gaggle of suitors and Cesar Izturis still manages to find work).

2--The selections at the time of the draft were not limited. There were at least a couple of Shelby Miller-level pitchers available, which is why some people were upset. You can view it your way, but you have to understand that *all* prospects have a very low chance of making the majors. In my mind, avoiding ace-quality HS pitchers because they &quot;have an even lower chance of making it&quot; is a blanket statement that&#039;s equally wrong. I would argue that a player with a high upside, even a starting pitcher, has a better chance of making a real contribution to the major league roster than a low-upside pick, because there&#039;s more wiggle room in player development. Rick Porcello is not the ace pitcher people hoped he be, but he still has started 89 games over 3 seasons for Detroit. with time to get better (he&#039;s only 22). Even with his big overslot contract, he still was less expensive than veteran starters providing the same level of pitching he has, and he&#039;s got 2 option years left on that contract.

Let me put it this way...I originally said the Wong pick was the right one to make because the Cardinals had a hole in their system at second, had a great batting prospect sitting there for the taking, and were already stocked with top-rotation pitching prospects. If all things were equal and the Cardinals&#039; system were empty on both counts, and they still selected Wong over a couple of guys like Guerreri and Norris, I would have howled with the rest, because:

a. Ace-level pitchers are hard to come by at the major league level, and when they do, they&#039;re damned expensive. They&#039;re also harder to come by in the later rounds of the draft.

b. Meanwhile, it&#039;s much easier and cheaper to fill your second baseman position at the major league level. There&#039;s also several more candidates, because you&#039;re not looking for an &quot;ace-level&quot; second baseman; just one who&#039;s capable of starting.

c. Yes, pitching prospects tend to implode more than position prospects. To me, that means if you have the opportunity to pick up a pitching prospect with the upside to be an ace, because the more of &#039;em you have, the better chance you have of having an ace arm on the cheap. The Cardinals have several arms that profile as top-of-the-rotation starters, with two of them among the nation&#039;s elite. Picking yet another prospect of that caliber would have been redundant, and it would have left a serious hole in the system in the middle infield, of which only Ryan Jackson, in my mind, currently has a chance of becoming a major league starter. This year, the Cardinals made the correct choice in taking the &quot;safe&quot; pick. But it&#039;s not always the correct choice.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1&#8211;You asked me why would it increase Wong&#8217;s draft value if Hawaii played him at short. Your statement sounded like Wong was capable of playing there, when he&#8217;s not. What you&#8217;re suggesting doesn&#8217;t happen&#8211;the drafted shortstops you mention, those who are judged at the time of the draft as players who will not stick at their position, usually are not judged as a high upside pick in the first place. Their draft value is hurt by their projected inability to play their drafted position. If a team drafts a quality defensive shortstop, they&#8217;re not going to do it with the idea of moving him to second as soon as he turns pro. Second basemen at the major league level are a dime a dozen; shortstops are not (which is why a broken down Jack Wilson currently has a gaggle of suitors and Cesar Izturis still manages to find work).</p>
<p>2&#8211;The selections at the time of the draft were not limited. There were at least a couple of Shelby Miller-level pitchers available, which is why some people were upset. You can view it your way, but you have to understand that *all* prospects have a very low chance of making the majors. In my mind, avoiding ace-quality HS pitchers because they &#8220;have an even lower chance of making it&#8221; is a blanket statement that&#8217;s equally wrong. I would argue that a player with a high upside, even a starting pitcher, has a better chance of making a real contribution to the major league roster than a low-upside pick, because there&#8217;s more wiggle room in player development. Rick Porcello is not the ace pitcher people hoped he be, but he still has started 89 games over 3 seasons for Detroit. with time to get better (he&#8217;s only 22). Even with his big overslot contract, he still was less expensive than veteran starters providing the same level of pitching he has, and he&#8217;s got 2 option years left on that contract.</p>
<p>Let me put it this way&#8230;I originally said the Wong pick was the right one to make because the Cardinals had a hole in their system at second, had a great batting prospect sitting there for the taking, and were already stocked with top-rotation pitching prospects. If all things were equal and the Cardinals&#8217; system were empty on both counts, and they still selected Wong over a couple of guys like Guerreri and Norris, I would have howled with the rest, because:</p>
<p>a. Ace-level pitchers are hard to come by at the major league level, and when they do, they&#8217;re damned expensive. They&#8217;re also harder to come by in the later rounds of the draft.</p>
<p>b. Meanwhile, it&#8217;s much easier and cheaper to fill your second baseman position at the major league level. There&#8217;s also several more candidates, because you&#8217;re not looking for an &#8220;ace-level&#8221; second baseman; just one who&#8217;s capable of starting.</p>
<p>c. Yes, pitching prospects tend to implode more than position prospects. To me, that means if you have the opportunity to pick up a pitching prospect with the upside to be an ace, because the more of &#8216;em you have, the better chance you have of having an ace arm on the cheap. The Cardinals have several arms that profile as top-of-the-rotation starters, with two of them among the nation&#8217;s elite. Picking yet another prospect of that caliber would have been redundant, and it would have left a serious hole in the system in the middle infield, of which only Ryan Jackson, in my mind, currently has a chance of becoming a major league starter. This year, the Cardinals made the correct choice in taking the &#8220;safe&#8221; pick. But it&#8217;s not always the correct choice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sportsman</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2011/11/22/baseball-americas-top-10/comment-page-1/#comment-55297</link>
		<dc:creator>sportsman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 02:06:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8447#comment-55297</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[maybe a hi % are college players?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>maybe a hi % are college players?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: azruavatar</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2011/11/22/baseball-americas-top-10/comment-page-1/#comment-55296</link>
		<dc:creator>azruavatar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 01:57:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8447#comment-55296</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We know. I have all the old files from there saved off but I&#039;ve never taken the time to figure out how to load them onto this site.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We know. I have all the old files from there saved off but I&#8217;ve never taken the time to figure out how to load them onto this site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gruntosaurus</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2011/11/22/baseball-americas-top-10/comment-page-1/#comment-55288</link>
		<dc:creator>Gruntosaurus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:12:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8447#comment-55288</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think, however, that if you go back to what the observers were saying about the farm system when Haren was the #1 pitching prospect, what emerges is that he was the best of a bad lot (in their eyes).  In terms of expectations, I don&#039;t think he was a great deal different than the expectations for Lynn circa March 2011.  Nobody saw him as an impending ace, the way the ill-starred Alan Benes was before him, or Shelby Miller is after him.  That he actually became one surprised a lot of people.  (I will modestly assert that the first time I saw him pitch, my reaction was &quot;hey, this guy could be better than people think&quot; -- but I get &#039;em wrong a lot more than I get &#039;em right.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think, however, that if you go back to what the observers were saying about the farm system when Haren was the #1 pitching prospect, what emerges is that he was the best of a bad lot (in their eyes).  In terms of expectations, I don&#8217;t think he was a great deal different than the expectations for Lynn circa March 2011.  Nobody saw him as an impending ace, the way the ill-starred Alan Benes was before him, or Shelby Miller is after him.  That he actually became one surprised a lot of people.  (I will modestly assert that the first time I saw him pitch, my reaction was &#8220;hey, this guy could be better than people think&#8221; &#8212; but I get &#8216;em wrong a lot more than I get &#8216;em right.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2011/11/22/baseball-americas-top-10/comment-page-1/#comment-55283</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:05:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8447#comment-55283</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Haren was our number 1 prospect.  I don&#039;t think Lynn has ever been our Top guy.  Essentially, he&#039;s been like number 4 I think a few years ago.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Haren was our number 1 prospect.  I don&#8217;t think Lynn has ever been our Top guy.  Essentially, he&#8217;s been like number 4 I think a few years ago.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PJ</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2011/11/22/baseball-americas-top-10/comment-page-1/#comment-55280</link>
		<dc:creator>PJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:56:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8447#comment-55280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nice comparison 

That pretty much sums up what was given for Mulder. However, Mulder was more highly regarded than Jurrjens is now. 

But yes....Lance Lynn is basically Dan Haren (at this point)

Hope he becomes Dan Haren]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice comparison </p>
<p>That pretty much sums up what was given for Mulder. However, Mulder was more highly regarded than Jurrjens is now. </p>
<p>But yes&#8230;.Lance Lynn is basically Dan Haren (at this point)</p>
<p>Hope he becomes Dan Haren</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
