<?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: Link Drop</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.futureredbirds.net/2012/01/04/link-drop-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2012/01/04/link-drop-2/</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: RCHIII</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2012/01/04/link-drop-2/comment-page-1/#comment-57457</link>
		<dc:creator>RCHIII</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:14:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8487#comment-57457</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As noted by others, they rank Rosenthal virtually even with Jenkins - Rosenthal only one slot ahead at #43.  These guys seem pretty sold on him (as am I) but admit that many will look at their ranking as aggressive.  My opinion hasn&#039;t changed in that I believe draft position bias still creeps in when folks consider Rosenthal - I think that is what generated the &quot;aggressive&quot; comment.  I still say if he had been drafted in the 5th round, nobody would think such a ranking would be aggressive - JMO]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As noted by others, they rank Rosenthal virtually even with Jenkins &#8211; Rosenthal only one slot ahead at #43.  These guys seem pretty sold on him (as am I) but admit that many will look at their ranking as aggressive.  My opinion hasn&#8217;t changed in that I believe draft position bias still creeps in when folks consider Rosenthal &#8211; I think that is what generated the &#8220;aggressive&#8221; comment.  I still say if he had been drafted in the 5th round, nobody would think such a ranking would be aggressive &#8211; JMO</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gruntosaurus</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2012/01/04/link-drop-2/comment-page-1/#comment-57456</link>
		<dc:creator>Gruntosaurus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:20:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8487#comment-57456</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Correction: Somehow I had missed that Rosenthal IS in their list -- at #43.  So not in the 1-40 list, as I said, but still way, way up there.  Their writers do agree with each other -- and now it&#039;s up to Rosey to demonstrate that this ranking is no fluke.

As Huge says above, that&#039;s 6 Future Redbirds in the top 53 prospects.  Things are looking good on the farm...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Correction: Somehow I had missed that Rosenthal IS in their list &#8212; at #43.  So not in the 1-40 list, as I said, but still way, way up there.  Their writers do agree with each other &#8212; and now it&#8217;s up to Rosey to demonstrate that this ranking is no fluke.</p>
<p>As Huge says above, that&#8217;s 6 Future Redbirds in the top 53 prospects.  Things are looking good on the farm&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bc</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2012/01/04/link-drop-2/comment-page-1/#comment-57455</link>
		<dc:creator>bc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:20:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8487#comment-57455</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rosenthal was above Wong - he was #43.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rosenthal was above Wong &#8211; he was #43.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gruntosaurus</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2012/01/04/link-drop-2/comment-page-1/#comment-57453</link>
		<dc:creator>Gruntosaurus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:15:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8487#comment-57453</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Indeed he&#039;s not (final list now up at http://baseballinstinct.com/2012/01/09/baseball-instinct-360-top-prospects-40-to-1/ ).  The reason for the expectations was that these lists have generally been based on the individual top-ten lists for franchises, and then &quot;seeded&quot; into 1-40, 41-80, etc., based on the writer&#039;s perception of how the top guys from each team compare.  Rosey had been as high as #5 on the Cardinals&#039; top-ten list, and #6 (Wong) didn&#039;t show up until #53, so there was reason to think Rosey would be above him.  He wasn&#039;t.  It isn&#039;t clear whether that&#039;s an omission, an admission that having him that high was erroneous to begin with, or just that the 360-man list was compiled by someone not as optimistic about him as the writer who did the team&#039;s top ten.

Anyway, three in the top 40 is still a very good thing, and now Rosenthal has a chance to show that he&#039;s being grossly underestimate by those unfamiliar with the system -- again.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed he&#8217;s not (final list now up at <a href="http://baseballinstinct.com/2012/01/09/baseball-instinct-360-top-prospects-40-to-1/" rel="nofollow">http://baseballinstinct.com/2012/01/09/baseball-instinct-360-top-prospects-40-to-1/</a> ).  The reason for the expectations was that these lists have generally been based on the individual top-ten lists for franchises, and then &#8220;seeded&#8221; into 1-40, 41-80, etc., based on the writer&#8217;s perception of how the top guys from each team compare.  Rosey had been as high as #5 on the Cardinals&#8217; top-ten list, and #6 (Wong) didn&#8217;t show up until #53, so there was reason to think Rosey would be above him.  He wasn&#8217;t.  It isn&#8217;t clear whether that&#8217;s an omission, an admission that having him that high was erroneous to begin with, or just that the 360-man list was compiled by someone not as optimistic about him as the writer who did the team&#8217;s top ten.</p>
<p>Anyway, three in the top 40 is still a very good thing, and now Rosenthal has a chance to show that he&#8217;s being grossly underestimate by those unfamiliar with the system &#8212; again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Indiana Cardinal</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2012/01/04/link-drop-2/comment-page-1/#comment-57452</link>
		<dc:creator>Indiana Cardinal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:40:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8487#comment-57452</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think the most exciting thing about their prospect list is that of the Cardinals top 10 only Lance Lynn is sure to graduate by experience off of that list for next season (Sanchez is not in their Top 10 for the Cards).  Miller, Adams and Cox all potentially could get enough experience to come off the list for 2013, but probably not.  Otherwise what is currently an outstanding Top 10 should be even stronger next year.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the most exciting thing about their prospect list is that of the Cardinals top 10 only Lance Lynn is sure to graduate by experience off of that list for next season (Sanchez is not in their Top 10 for the Cards).  Miller, Adams and Cox all potentially could get enough experience to come off the list for 2013, but probably not.  Otherwise what is currently an outstanding Top 10 should be even stronger next year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cariocacardinal</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2012/01/04/link-drop-2/comment-page-1/#comment-57451</link>
		<dc:creator>cariocacardinal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:34:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8487#comment-57451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why is everyone so sure Rosenthal is in the top 40?  Lacking other info, I&#039;d guess he&#039;s not.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why is everyone so sure Rosenthal is in the top 40?  Lacking other info, I&#8217;d guess he&#8217;s not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hugecardsfan</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2012/01/04/link-drop-2/comment-page-1/#comment-57447</link>
		<dc:creator>Hugecardsfan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 03:46:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8487#comment-57447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gotta admit that it was getting exciting to be pushing down that list, knowing there were 6 Cardinals unaccounted for and not getting to one of them until #53.

I am not surprised that someone was willing to go out on a limb for Rosenthal.  I think his upside is huge.  The best part about him may be his head.  He&#039;s come a long way since SS 3 years ago.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gotta admit that it was getting exciting to be pushing down that list, knowing there were 6 Cardinals unaccounted for and not getting to one of them until #53.</p>
<p>I am not surprised that someone was willing to go out on a limb for Rosenthal.  I think his upside is huge.  The best part about him may be his head.  He&#8217;s come a long way since SS 3 years ago.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RCHIII</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2012/01/04/link-drop-2/comment-page-1/#comment-57440</link>
		<dc:creator>RCHIII</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:57:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8487#comment-57440</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Toss in Swagerty and the upside possibilities of Cleto - if half of these guys come around, we are looking great for quite some time.  It really is a shocking turnaround for the system.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Toss in Swagerty and the upside possibilities of Cleto &#8211; if half of these guys come around, we are looking great for quite some time.  It really is a shocking turnaround for the system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IllinoisCardinalFan</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2012/01/04/link-drop-2/comment-page-1/#comment-57439</link>
		<dc:creator>IllinoisCardinalFan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:09:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8487#comment-57439</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was wondering if anyone can think of a time when we have had four pitching prospects like this in the system at the same time. There were a couple of years like 96 when we had Benes and Morris and 2000, Ankiel and Hutchinson. Although only going 1-4 on those prospects was quite disappointing.

But Miller, Martinez, Rosenthal and Jenkins really look like something to get excited about.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was wondering if anyone can think of a time when we have had four pitching prospects like this in the system at the same time. There were a couple of years like 96 when we had Benes and Morris and 2000, Ankiel and Hutchinson. Although only going 1-4 on those prospects was quite disappointing.</p>
<p>But Miller, Martinez, Rosenthal and Jenkins really look like something to get excited about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: johnorpheus</title>
		<link>http://www.futureredbirds.net/2012/01/04/link-drop-2/comment-page-1/#comment-57436</link>
		<dc:creator>johnorpheus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:54:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futureredbirds.net/?p=8487#comment-57436</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wow, based on today&#039;s ranking though #41, Cards have 6 prospects in their top 50 (well, Wong is #53, so close enough). Wong, Jenkins, and Rosenthal with Tavares, Martinez, and Miller coming in the top 40 is pretty damn impressive. I don&#039;t even think the Royals had that many top 50 prospects on most list last year, though they might have.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, based on today&#8217;s ranking though #41, Cards have 6 prospects in their top 50 (well, Wong is #53, so close enough). Wong, Jenkins, and Rosenthal with Tavares, Martinez, and Miller coming in the top 40 is pretty damn impressive. I don&#8217;t even think the Royals had that many top 50 prospects on most list last year, though they might have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
