whitesox61382

Rex, would you happen to have a list of BA's top 10 prospects from last year? That is usually a good indicator for who will make the list this year. I disagree with you on Diaz. I really think this guy could be a sleeper. I have seen him pitch and understand why scouts are so high on his arm/stuff. The only problem I see with him is that he isn't very big and he could breakdown with too much work or be prone to injuries. Besides that I see nothing wrong with him. He fits most of the guidelines that I listed in the other thread. He is still very young at 22. For example, he is 3 years younger then Pacheco and pitching at a higher level. His numbers(over his career and last year) are pretty solid and consistant. He gave up about a hit per inning pitched last year, however, he did post a solid ERA(3.97), only gave up 12 HR in 115.2 IP(in a good hitters park), had very good control(only 33 BB in 115.2 IP), and had a solid 2.5 SO:BB ratio. Like I said before, I believe that he was on last years list and he has done nothing to warrant being taken off the list. I think this guy could play an important role next year, and don't understand why you think he is spinning his wheels. He is still very young and hasn't spent more then a year at a given level in the minors. Don't get me wrong, I love what I hear about this Chris Young. From what I have read of him he is one of those highly thought of 5 tool centerfielders. He is coming off a very solid year, however, like I mentioned before I don't think BA includes many prospects from rookie ball unless that are top picks. Next year he will probably start the year in low A ball and it will be interesting to see how he adjusts. We should get a better understanding of what to expect from him this upcoming season. I did see Pacheco pitch once while I was down in Birmingham this past summer, and hope to get a better idea of his stuff this spring in Tucson. He could be a late bloomer, but since I have only seen him pitch once and have to rely on scouting reports I am still skeptical. His age along with his inconsistancy before last year are the reasons why I left him off the list. I think he will start this year at AAA, and it will probably be a make or break type of year for him. I hope for the best, but I am not getting my hopes too high.

Yes, as it stands right now, the bullpen is a strength. Marte - Might be the 2nd best lefty reliever in the game(behind Wagner). Wunsch - One of the top lefty specialist in the game. Koch - I have little doubt that he will be better next year. Before last year, he was a very good closer. Mr. Zero - It will be interesting to see how he adjusts, but I think he will be pretty good, especially if he is used correctly(against mostly righties). Politte - Struggled last year, but the previous 3 years he was a very solid reliever. Wright - Pitched well after being moved to the pen. Most scouts felt that Wright's best role would be as a set up guy or possible a closer. I really think he will excel in this role. The rest: Jackson - A solid middle reliever who has closer before. I don't expect much from him, but if he is healthy he could be this years Gordon. Santiago - I am not a huge fan of his, but he did put up a respectible ERA last year. Person - If he isn't in the rotation, than he could be a very good long reliever. Ginter - I have always been a big fan of him, and think that he deserves a shot this year. Rauch - If he isn't in the rotation, than he could be used a long reliever. Diaz - See Rauch You have to understand that over the course of a season very few teams have a productive 5th and 6th reliever. The Sox have a decent pen right now, but what turns the Sox pen into a strength is the added depth. This will allow them to have a short lease on any reliever that struggles(no Rick White pitching like s*** for 2 months before he is replaced). Sure some of the guys from "the rest" list won't make the team and could struggle, but it adds unbelievable depth and a good mix of seasoned veteran and upcoming youngsters to choose from. This should give the Sox decent production from the 5th and 6th relievers. This makes the bullpen a strength at this point in the season. I do like the trades from a talent standpoint, however, I am just pointing out that these purposals are so far fetched that it is nothing more then wishful thinking. At this point I think the Sox are pretty set. You might see a few more minor moves, maybe even a trade that involves Koch, but I doubt you will see any big moves. I think the Sox are content with Schoeneweis, Person, Rauch, and Diaz fighting for the final 2 spots and hope that 1 or 2 of them can put together a solid year. A suggestion to your lineup(if the trade happened). I think the Sox would put either Kennedy or Erstad in the #2 hole and move Lee to the 4 hole. The Sox need Lee's run production in the middle of the order, and I think Kennedy and Erstad would be better top of the order hitters anyways. The lineup does look much weaker though.

Do you leave in(near) Tucson? The places that you mentioned are pretty popular bars/clubs. I usually stick to house parties with friends and hockey/lacrosse teammates. What are you looking for? Are you looking for a sit down type bar? A dance club? Places to get good food? All of the above?

This is my own list, but I will also submit it as my guess for BA's list. I think they follow similar guidelines that I do. 1) Reed - Everywhere this guy has been he has hit. His plate disipline is amazing for a kid his age. After his big year he has to be #1. 2) Honel - Consistancy. This kid has consistantly put up good numbers from day 1(fewer hits than IP, close to a 1:1 SO:IP ratio, very good BB:SO ratio, ect) 3) Cotts - I normally wouldn't rank Cotts that high, because guys with his control problems, despite his good raw stuff and numbers, generally don't suceed in the majors. However, the Sox system is very weak right now, especially in the upper minors. 4) Rauch - I was very surprised that he didn't get a shot last year and I believe that he will be the favorite to win a spot if the Sox give a rotation spot to a youngster. He put together a solid year last year in AAA including a dominating second half. 5) Diaz - I am a huge fan of this guy. He has a good combination of raw stuff and good(consistant) minor league numbers. He is also coming off a good year in winter ball. I have a feeling that he will play an important role next year either in the pen or rotation. 6) Wing - A lefty with plus stuff and good numbers has him at #6, however, his control is a bit of an issue as he reaches the higher minors. 7) Borchard - I have never been a huge fan of Borchard, but his potential along with either a good ST or 2-3 months in AAA could have him playing an important role in the majors next year. 8) Anderson - If he can stay healthy, he has the raw tools to climb the minors very fast. Like I mentioned before, I go to the U of A, so I got to see him play in person. He is a true 5 tool player, however, I am a little cautious because his junior year was his 1st big year, and he sometimes strikesout a little too much. 9) Sweeney - The steal of the 2003 draft. I have become a huge fan of this guy(in only half a year). This guy has unlimited potential and could surpass Anderson(along with a few other on this list) in the very near future. 10) Munoz - Even after a so-so year in AAA, I still think this guy has good potential. One of the things that I like about him is his age. Most guys his age are in A ball, but he was pitching in AAA. He has a plus arm and after the 1st couple of weeks he put together a pretty solid year. Guys just missing the list(in no particular order): Majewski - Still young, and put a solid year together in AAA. Pacheco - 1st good year, and the fact that he will be 25 prevents him from making the list. Malone - Came back from an injury and pitched well. Next year will be a big year for him. Yan - His speed is hard to ignore, but unless he can get on base consistantly he won't be in the majors. Castro(Julio and Fabio) - Both of them put up some impressive number. Phillips - Young lefty with good control. Tisch - Big righty with a plus arm and solid number. LaMura - Might have the best "raw" stuff of all the Sox pitchers Valido - The only true middle infield prospect. Has a chance to be very good. Young - 5 tool outfielder who had a great year. His strikeouts are a little high. Lopez(Orionny) - I am a huge fan of this guy and he put together his 2nd solid year in rookie ball. Nanita - Came out of nowhere to put a great year together. Is a little old and needs to show same potential in higher minors. Bounds - He is a little old for rookie ball, but his numbers are hard to ignore. King - After a slow start, finished the year hitting over .300. McCarthy - Big righty with an outstanding BB:SO ratio. I find that very few of you guys predict that Diaz will be on the list. If I remeber correctly, Diaz was on the top 10 list last year and has done nothing to warrant being taken off the list. A sub-4 ERA in a good hitters park, at the age of 23, with in above average arm should almost certainly have him on the list. I also think that you guys rate Chris Young a little too high. He had a nice year and has some good raw skills, but BA rarely puts prospects from rookie ball on their top 10 list, especially if they aren't highly thought of(like Anderson or Sweeney). He also struggled when promoted to advanced rookie ball. Its a small sample size, but he hit .176(in 34 AB's), with no HR's, and poor plate disipline(1 BB and 10 SO). I also worry about his 40 SO in 238 AB's. I highly doubt that he makes the top 10 list. The one guy that might make BA's list that doesn't make my personal list is Pacheco. I am not very high on this guy, but BA might include him after his impressive year at AA. BA will probably have Borchard a little higher then 7th and Diaz a little lower then 5th(you could probably switch them). Besides that, I think my list will be realitively similar.

Who said anything about #1 seeds winning it all? I was pointing out the well known fact that you usually have at least 2 #1 seeds in the Final 4(but never all 4). That 1 of the Final 4 teams is usually a #2 or #3 seed, and that you RARELY have a team below a #5 seed make it to the Final 4. These are pretty well known facts that I thought I would point out. I wasn't talking about winning it all since the topic at hand was the Final 4. With that said, I picked Texas as my winner, and I figured that they would be a #2 or #3 seed.

Can we please stop with this BS? This guy is throwing out far fetched rumors and supporting them with this Nomar-Maggs trade that he supposely predicted(which still hasn't happened). I don't buy it. Why would the Sox add 2 relievers(minus Koch) when they just signed Mr. Zero and a couple of veterans to minor league contracts(Jackson, Santiago, Person). The bullpen has turned into a strength(as it stands right now), and would still be solid even if Koch was traded. I also hate the idea of getting Erstad. The guy is one of hte most overrated players in the game. I also don't like the fact that the Sox's would add 2 big long-term contracts as well(Damon and Erstad). This trade doesn't free up much money either. There are also too many variables/teams involved. The lists of problems and inconsistances in this trade go on and on. You can debate this trade all you want, but it isn't going to happen.

In general, you normally have 2 or 3 #1 seeds make it to the final four, so usually 2 or 3 of the top/most talented teams usually make it to the Final 4. After that you generally get 1 or 2 #2-#3 seeds, and you rarely see a team with a low seed then #5 make it, which means almost all the final four teams are ranked in the top 25 at the end of the season. Just a few things to keep in mind. In regards to MSU, I don't like to toot my own horn, but I had them pegged to a tie. I mentioned that they don't have a true PG and that they have very little depth up front, with Davis being their only solid player down low. They need to have a good Big 10 record else they aren't getting into the Tourny(unless they win the Big 10 tourny). Its a good thing that the Big 10 is so weak. At this point, I don't think MSU would get into the Tourny. My Final 4 picks UConn, Texas, Missouri, Florida aren't looking as good. I think UConn has the most talent this year and has a good chance to get to the Final 4. Texas is a very good team and could get a #2-#3 seed with a decent shot of getting to the Final 4. Missouri has to be one of the biggest dissapointments this year. This team has so much talent that it isn't even funny. They could be one of those teams that finish the year strong and could make a run in the Tourny. Florida has been really struggling of late. After getting to #1 they have really struggled. They have the talent to get to the Final 4, but like always I have a feeling that they will fall short of expectations.

He is a one-year rental, because he doesn't have a guaranteed contract for next year. Despite Maggs talent and that the Phillys COULD resign him, the fact that he isn't signed after this year hurts his trade value. Furthermore, Maggs agent has said that Maggs wants to test the FA market, which makes it unlikely for him to resign before the offseason. The Philly's might have the money to make a run at Maggs(and resign him if they traded for him), but every team looking for a difference making outfielder with money to spend will be after Maggs(and Beltran), so by no means is Philly guaranteed to resign him(if they traded for him), which is the definition of a one-year rental. This trade just doesn't make sense for the Philly's. When I look at the Philly's roster right now I see an extremely talented team that is probably the favorites to win their division, so why make a trade that adds payroll, but probably makes the team worse on paper? Valentin and Rollins could be seen as a draw(all things considered), so that means that Philly would be giving up a proven #2 starter, a talented outfielder coming off a sub par season, and one of the top young CF in the game for Maggs. Sure Maggs is an upgrade over Burrel, but now Philly is stuck with holes in CF and at the front of the rotation. Tell me how that makes them better? Furthermore, they are giving up 4 players under the age of 28(who are the future of their team) for 2 players that will be FA next year. The is no way that Philly even things about doing such a one-sided deal.

I don't see why Philly would even think about doing this trade. Yes, they get rid of a bad contract in Burrel, but they are giving up way too much for 2 one-year rentals. They are also adding to their payroll, which most experts feel is maxed out with the additions of Wagner and Milton, and Millwood accepting arbitration. Philly has a deep pitching staff, but that doesn't mean that they will/want to trade away a very good 27 year old lefty. Furthermore, Philly gave away some pretty talented youngsters to get Milton and Wagner, and now you want them to give up a good 27 year old lefy starter, a solid 25 year old SS, an extremely talented 26 year old CF, and a very good 27 year old OF. Why don't the Sox ask for every one of Philly's good players under the age of 28(including prospects) while they are at it? This trade is nothing more then wishful thinking, one-sided, BS. Please don't put much stock into it.

I understand that, but then I point to the Big 12 pick of TJ Ford as the starting PG. I didn't like that pick, especially if you take into consideration the length that they stayed.

Thats a tough call. I understand all of the picks, although I would have picked Thomas over Cleaves. Other then that, I think the list is pretty accurate. You could have replaced Robinson and Jackson with Webber and Rice, but my PERSONAL picks would have been Robinson and Jackson. Some people(the fans) pick the players that eventually developed into the best players(in the NBA), but forget that this was based on their college careers. Furthermore, on the ESPN polls you see a lot more players from the current era(the last 5-10 years) making the list, and players from 15-20 years ago get ignored to some degree. As a fellow Hoosier fan I am glad to see Leach back in there. Not so much for his offense, but the defensive pressence that a 6'11 shot blocker brings. The Hoosiers were stuck playing 6'7 Kline and Ewing versus other teams top big man, and they just couldn't get it done. Hopefully the Hoosiers can continue their run, because the weakness of the Big 10 this year could mean that only 4-5 teams make it. The Hoosiers still lack the talent and depth up front(even with Leach) to go far in the Tourny(if they make it), but none the less it would be nice to keep that streak going(going to the Tourny). The good news is that Hoosier fans have a. great recruiting class coming in next year and should get some much needed talent and depth up front. My only concern is that Smith will go to the pros instead of stepping foot at Indiana. From what I have heard, his stock has gone up since this summer and he has been the leader and star of the national high school power Oak Hill. If Smith doesn't go to the pros, than IU might have themselves the next Carmelo Anthony. Most people feel that he is that good and maybe even more developed then Anthony at this point in his career, which leads many to believe that he won't see 1 minute of college ball. Heres hoping that he joins White, Hardy, Vaden, and Ratcliff to IU

I really think that the Royals are overrated and setting themselves up for a let down(the fans). When you look at the Royals from the outside you see a team that won 83 games and made some nice personal improvements, but what you don't see is that last years team DRASTICLY overachieved(with stats to support this) and most of the improvements were minor. Some people will say that the Royals should win around 90 games and win the division, but I see a team that will struggle to be over .500. Their offense, defense, and bullpen are no better then the Sox, and their starting staff has as many question marks(maybe more). I have to agree with the other fan that said the Twins are probably the team to beat at this point. They did lose 2 key bullpen members, a catcher, and a couple of veteran bottom of the rotation pitchers, but I think the Twins have the strongest upper minor league system in the AL Central with top prospects like Mauer, Bonser, Morneau, Cuddyer, Restovich, Balfour, Ryan, Crain, Ford, Nakamura, and company. I know that most of those guys will struggle or bust, but 1 or 2 of them should be able to put up respectible numbers at the least. They also resigned Stewart, who I think is a very good player and was the key to the Twins stretch run, and they got Nathan back in the Pierzynski, who should help soften the blow of Hawkins leaving. I really think they are still the team to beat(not to mention the fact that they always seem to overachieve and win more games then they talent would suggest), but I think any of the 3 teams could easily win the division. Staying healthy and the team that gets the most production out of the bottom of their rotation will probably be the keys to winning the division.

This trade is complete BS, however, if the Sox do happen to trade either Maggs or Konerko, than I think signing Travis Lee as a replacement would be a good idea. He would come pretty cheap(my guess would be 2-3M tops), is still realitively young(28), would give the Sox a left bat for the middle of the order, he can play a little outfield and 1B, and he is pretty solid offensive(most likely a high .700-low .800 OPS guy). He is really the only decent option the Sox have if they trade either Maggs or Konerko(IMO). Just thought that I would throw that out there.

I just watched Along Came Polly and it was a typical Stiller movie. Not as funny as Meet the Parents or Something About Mary, but funny none the less. If you like previous Stiller movies, than I would recommend seeing this movie. It has some very funny parts and some parts that are pretty sick(typical Stiller). I would give it a 3.5 out of 5. Its not a chick flick either for the person that said that it looked like one.

AL Central Ditka 162-0 Twins 87-75 Royals 84-78 Sox 82-80 Tribe 74-86 Tigers 55-107 Ditka beats the Yankees, BoSox, and A's at the same time in the playoffs.

Thank you Ugly. Thats exactly what I meant when I said he was a little old. 22 is very old for rookie ball, especially when you are facing a lot of inconsistant 18-19 year old pitchers right out of high school. I love the numbers that he put up, but to be considered for MY top 10 list he will have to continue to put up good numbers in the higher minors against players his own age.

After the top 3(Reed, Honel, and Cotts) the rest of the top 10 propsect list gets tricky and thats why you didn't see the same top 10 list. Some posters like certain prospects better then others. Some posters rate them by "potential" while others rate them by "performance". Here are some of the things that I look at before throwing together a top 10 list(in no particular order of importance). 1) I have a firm role that a player CAN NOT be over the age of 25 to be considered a prospect. This is my own rule, although most "expert" rankings take into consideration a similar role. I think a line needs to be drawn between prospect and career minor leaguer/failed prospect. One reason I picked 26 or older was because there is a strong correlation between making the majorsbefore 26 and becoming solid major league players. Rarely do you see guys make the majors after 25 and become solid players. 2) Upper minors over the lower minors. I put more stock in guys in the upper minors(Rauch, Diaz, and Borchard) than guys in the lower minors(Anderson, Sweeney, and Valido). The guys in the lower minors might have more "potential", but there is a long way between rookie ball and the majors, and on the long road a lot of things could happen(struggles, injuries, ect). I would say that the 2 rookie ball teams have the most raw talent, but I would argue that more then half the guys that put up good numbers(in rookie ball) will never even make it to the majors. Because of this I reward players in the upper minors because they have survived the lower minors and are very close to the majors, and in the end the only thing that matters is major league production. Its also hard to project how prospects in rookie ball are going to develop, especially after only half a season. 3) Consistancy. I like it when a prospect is consistant from level to level in the minors. Honel is a perfect example of this, and his consistancy is why I have him rated higher then a pitcher with arguable more "potential" who has been inconsistant(Cotts). 4) Age. A guy could be putting up dominating numbers, but if he is 24 in low A ball that really hurts his value. A good example of this is Meaux. Conversely, if a 21 year old is putting up good numbers in AAA, than that helps his value. I follow a pretty basic step rull when it comes to figuring ages for certain levels. Rookie Ball - 21 low A - 22 high A - 23 AA - 24 AAA - 25 If a prospect is older then the listed age at that level, than I take that into consideration. 5) Numbers. I look at a lot of numbers, but two stats I really look at for both pitchers and hitters is BB and SO. I love good plate disipline in young hitters(one of the reasons I am high on Reed and why he was #8 on my list at the start of last year) and I love pitchers with good BB:SO ratios. Hitters with plate disipline as a young hitter are generally more likely to develop, and pitchers with good control and high strikeout totals are generally more likely to develop. I look at all of the stats for a player, but in most cases I weigh BB and SO the highest. 6) Injuries. Has a player had a major injury that might affect his progress? Unfortunately, pitchers like Rauch and Stumm that have had major surgury on their pitching arm are fair less likely to make the majors then guys that have a clean bill of health. These are the major catogories that I look at when it comes to ranking prospects. With that said, here is my top 10 list. 1) Reed - Everywhere this guy has been he has hit. His plate disipline is amazing for a kid his age. After his big year he has to be #1. 2) Honel - Consistancy. This kid has consistantly put up good numbers from day 1(fewer hits than IP, close to a 1:1 SO:IP ratio, very good BB:SO ratio, ect) 3) Cotts - I normally wouldn't rank Cotts that high, because guys with his control problems, despite his good raw stuff and numbers, generally don't suceed in the majors. However, the Sox system is very weak right now, especially in the upper minors. 4) Rauch - I was very surprised that he didn't get a shot last year and I believe that he will be the favorite to win a spot if the Sox give a rotation spot to a youngster. He put together a solid year last year in AAA including a dominating second half. 5) Diaz - I am a huge fan of this guy. He has a good combination of raw stuff and good(consistant) minor league numbers. He is also coming off a good year in winter ball. I have a feeling that he will play an important role next year either in the pen or rotation. 6) Wing - A lefty with plus stuff and good numbers has him at #6, however, his control is a bit of an issue as he reaches the higher minors. 7) Borchard - I have never been a huge fan of Borchard, but his potential along with either a good ST or 2-3 months in AAA could have him playing an important role in the majors next year. 8) Anderson - If he can stay healthy, he has the raw tools to climb the minors very fast. Like I mentioned before, I go to the U of A, so I got to see him play in person. He is a true 5 tool player, however, I am a little cautious because his junior year was his 1st big year, and he sometimes strikesout a little too much. 9) Sweeney - The steal of the 2003 draft. I have become a huge fan of this guy(in only half a year). This guy has unlimited potential and could surpass Anderson(along with a few other on this list) in the very near future. 10) Munoz - Even after a so-so year in AAA, I still think this guy has good potential. One of the things that I like about him is his age. Most guys his age are in A ball, but he was pitching in AAA. He has a plus arm and after the 1st couple of weeks he put together a pretty solid year. Guys just missing the list(in no particular order): Majewski - Still young, and put a solid year together in AAA. Pacheco - 1st good year, and the fact that he will be 25 prevents him from making the list. Malone - Came back from an injury and pitched well. Next year will be a big year for him. Yan - His speed is hard to ignore, but unless he can get on base consistantly he won't be in the majors. Castro(Julio and Fabio) - Both of them put up some impressive number. Phillips - Young lefty with good control. Tisch - Big righty with a plus arm and solid number. LaMura - Might have the best "raw" stuff of all the Sox pitchers Valido - The only true middle infield prospect. Has a chance to be very good. Young - 5 tool outfielder who had a great year. His strikeouts are a little high. Lopez(Orionny) - I am a huge fan of this guy and he put together his 2nd solid year in rookie ball. Nanita - Came out of nowhere to put a great year together. Is a little old and needs to show same potential in higher minors. Bounds - He is a little old for rookie ball, but his numbers are hard to ignore. King - After a slow start, finished the year hitting over .300. McCarthy - Big righty with an outstanding BB:SO ratio. Sorry for the length.

I feel like I am repeating myself so I will just make some bullet points to summarize my arguement. - Perdo's numbers as a starter in his 1st 3 years(94-96) were still pretty damn impressive, including the fact that he never posted an ERA above 3.70. 1994 Mon 24 23 1 1 144.2 115 58 55 11 45 142 11 5 1 0 0 3.42 1995 Mon 30 30 2 2 194.2 158 79 76 21 66 174 14 10 0 0 -- 3.51 1996 Mon 33 33 4 1 216.2 189 100 89 19 70 222 13 10 0 0 -- 3.70 - I am suggesting that Jackson and Miller could possible follow a similar learning curve as Pedro. By that I mean they either could be dominating out of the pen from day 1 and eventually move to the rotation, OR they could start in the rotation and put up good number(similar to Pedro his 1st couple of years), but not dominating numbers(maybe with time). - You need to stop with this 1.27 WHIP. You do realize that is below the league average, and is still pretty solid. Furthermore, he showed the ability to pitch around the baserunners as evidence by his low ERA and high SO total. - As unlike as it is that the Sox would be able to land BOTH Jackson and Miller, it is similarly unlikely that the Sox would bring in two big salary starter(like Perez and Ponson). If the suggested Maggs to LA deal would go through, than the Sox would save about 7M. It just so happens that as things stand right now(after arbitration), the Sox are about 5-7M over budget so that 7M saved would go to existing players and not to a player like Ponson at 6M. So the idea of Garland being the 5th starter is highly unlikely, and I think there is a good chance that Jackson could put up better numbers then Garland next year. Besides I like the idea of giving the 5th spot to youngsters, especially if one of those youngsters is either Jackson or Miller. The key to sucess is building from within and suplanenting from outside. - They lack Prior/Harden jaw dropping numbers? Have you even checked the stats? I don't think you have, because here is a breakdown of how each did. Prior 22, AA and AAA(from 2002) 50 IP 7.02H/9IP 3.24BB/9IP 14.22SO/9IP Harden 21, AAA(from 2003) 88.2IP 7.33H/9IP 3.56BB/9IP 9.23SO/9IP Jackson 19, AA(from 2003) 148.1IP 7.34H/9IP 3.21BB/9IP 9.53SO/9IP Miller 18, high A and AA(from 2003) 142.1IP 7.46h/9IP 3.03BB/9IP 9.55SO/9IP - As you can see, besides Prior's SO/9IP rate, there numbers are almost identical, so will you please stop with this "human" type numbers. Not only that, but their walk rates were both lower then Prior and Harden, which I think is maybe the most important stat up there. Furthermore, both Miller and Jackson are 2+ years ahead of Prior and Harden, which is what makes them that special. They are putting up similar numbers as other top prospects, but they are doing it 2-3 years younger then there counterparts. They aren't 1 year above the learning curve, they are 2-3 years above the curve, which is the reason I can argue that they might be able to be good in the majors at 20 or 21, because that is similar to comparing them to other top prospects at 23 or 24 coming into their own. Not only is it that there numbers are impressive, but their raw stuff is what makes them head and shoulders above the rest of the pitching prospects. Thats why I, along with ever scout in the majors/minors, love these guys and think there are 2 of the top 5 pitching prospects in baseball. Its also why Evans is so reluctant to give them up. - In conclusion, my point isn't that they are going to dominate from day 1, but I am suggesting that they could be very effect(ie ERA in the 4.00-4.50 range as a 5th starter) even at the age of 20 or 21. With time they have the ability to develop into a front of the rotation starter. The fact is that pitching prospects of this calibur don't come around that often(see Mark Prior), and to add one of these guys would be like adding a Mark Prior to our organization.

My whole point is that I believe Jackson could put up good numbers as a 5th starter next year or possible a key right handed reliever. In either case he would probably drasticly help this team win. I do agree that the lose of Maggs(and possible Nomar if they got him and then traded him) would hurt from a PR standpoint, but if the Sox make the right moves and spend the money that they save wisely, than all of that could go out the window with a winning team that is contending for the division. Those sample numbers were adjusted to the AL and a better hitters park, but even if Jackson posted a 4.50 ERA in the 5th starters spot, is that not a drastic improvement from the 6.75 ERA that the Sox got from the 5th starters last year? Wouldn't that make the Sox a better team in comparison to last years team? Furthermore, if you did some reseach, I did some a while back, you will find that the average 5th starter in the AL posts an ERA in the mid-5's, so Jackson's 4.50 would be quite a bit better then the league average as well. To take it a step further, I think the Sox will be hard pressed to find better numbers/option in the 5th spot from within the organization or through the signing of a veteran bottom of the rotation starter. So I would argue that he would improve the team from that standpoint as well. The Sox need to make moves for the present AND near future. Adding Jackson and Miller would address those needs. The Sox don't have pitching prospects that compare to Jackson or Miller(not Cotts, not Honel, not Rauch). Furthermore, these guys are advanced past their age. Both of these guys are 20 or younger, and both could be pitching in the majors next year(Jackson already did so last year). The one area this organization is weak in is talent in the upper minors, and getting these two would drasticly improve that. These two guys are possible 2 of the top 5 pitching prospects in baseball. They are almost the sole reason why the Dodgers system is ranked in the top 5. I am normally reserved when it comes to prospects, because I usually use a prove it to me approach, and until they prove themselves at the major league level they have little use to the Sox(besides possible trades). However, with these two I might change my approach. Thats how good they are, and I haven't even seen Miller pitch in person. As far as your guarantee that Miller won't be in the majors next year, you could turn out to be very wrong. You do realize that the Dodger almost called Miller to the majors last year, and decided to go with Jackson because he was a little more advanced? While Miller might benefit more from a full season in the minors, the fact is that he is advanced past his age, and that he has the stuff to pitch in the majors right now. Furthermore, if he dominates for half a year in AA, than I think the odds are in his favor that he will get a taste of the majors at some point in 2004. The Dodgers might even keep in out of ST if they feel he is ready, although that isn't likely. If you look at Pedro's numbers as a starter, than you will see that they were still pretty impressive. Once again I will state that my point isn't that Miller and Jackson will come into the majors from day 1 and dominate, however, I am arguing that it is certainly possible based on their numbers/stuff/development that they could come in and put up very solid numbers that would improve this team. I do think it will take some time before they develop into true aces, if they ever do.

If Armas Jr is non-tendered, than I think the Sox would be stupid not to take a flier on this kid. It could turn out to be one of the biggest steals in baseball. I realize that this kid is coming off a major injury, but at his age, with his stuff, and his past sucess, the Sox could find themselves a diamond in the rough.

I love how you look at only the one semi-bad stat and point to that. Besides, a 1.27 WHIP is more then respectable(quite a bit better then Buehrle's WHIP for comparison). Anyone can make an arguement based on selective use of stats. Why didn't you mention his 2-1 record, or his 2.45 ERA, or only giving up 17 hits in 22 innings, or his 19 SO in 22 innings, or only giving up 2 HR's in 22 IP, or his 19:11 SO:BB ratio. Granted it was a very small sample size, but it certainly showed that he would probably have little trouble putting up decent numbers in the majors as early as next year. His number at AA as a 19 year old kid were the following: 7-7 3.70 ERA 148.1 IP 121 H 9 HR 54 BB 157 SO What is not spectacular about those numbers, especially by a 19 year old kid at AA? Most prospects that are 19 are in rookie ball. His ERA is a little higher then expected, but if you look at the overall stats, than you will notice that it will most likely come down. He only gave up 121 hits in 148.1 IP, he only gave up 9 HR in 148.1 IP, he had a pretty solid 1:3 BB:IP ratio, he had a solid 3:1 SO:BB ratio, and he had more SO(157) then innings pitched(148.1). If those aren't spectacular numbers, than I don't know what it. Furthermore, he is almost guaranteed to start the year in the rotation, and is the best pitching prospect out of LA since Perdo. Could the kid use a little more time to work on his command and breaking pitches, probably, but that doesn't mean that he still can't come into the majors and pitch well, if not dominate. One of the best things about him is his smooth, effortless deliver(ala Prior), which should help keep a constant release point(very important for youngsters) and keep from putting too much stress on his arm. There is a learning curve for most young players, but you are blind if you don't realize that there are a few guys that come into the league and dominate, and even more that come into the league and perform well(but not quite dominate) from day 1. You need to check your stats on Perdo again. In his 1st full year in the majors at the age of 22 he put up the following stats, mostly from the pen: 10-5 2.61 ERA 107 IP 76 H 5 HR 57 BB 119 SO I don't know about you, but those are some pretty dominating stats, and he continued the following year and so on. I don't think it is out of the question that Jackson, possible even Miller, could put up those kind of stats as a rookie. The point that I am trying to make about them being effect and helping the Sox in 2004 isn't that I think they are going to put up numbers that would yield them the CY Young, but that they can come in and put up respectable numbers from the 5th starters spot. For example, I think the following stats would be more then realistic for either next year: 10-8 4.20 ERA 150 IP 140 H 15 HR 65 BB 130 SO The point that I am trying to make is that the Sox got the following numbers from the 5th starters spot last year: 3-11 6.75 ERA 122.1 IP 139 H 21 HR 75 BB 74 SO I am agruing that at the very least they can put up better numbers than that, and could even put together a great year. Getting a solid year out of them from the 5th starters spot would more then help this team in 2004 and be a drastic improvement over 2003. They could also help out in the pen as well, similar to Pedro when he was 22 in his 1st full year. So saying that neither of these guys would help in 2004 is simple untrue. They may not dominate from day 1, although they could, but they could probably put up solid numbers and help this team if 2004. In regards to the age factor, you must not be reading my post that carefully. I am not suggesting that they will come in and be dominating #1 starters from day 1. The arguement I am making is that they have to stuff NOW to pitch in the majors, and could put up solid numbers in either the 5th spot in the rotations or the bullpen. Most of the guys you listed put up solid numbers in the first full year, and I am merely suggesting that either Jackson or Miller could also do the same, and eventual develop into front of the rotation starters with time. Brando, you are looking at this issue from a very one-sided point of view. Yes it is possible that neither could live up to their hype, or struggle their 1st couple of years, or not be read at this point, but there is also some evidence supporting the other side of the arguement that I have shown you yet you fail to accept. You say that the truth is often very simple, but the fact remains that in life there is no certain truth.

I am not a huge fan of Perez either, and do think he is overrated, but he still has a decent shot of being a solid middle of the rotation starter next year. I base this on his raw stuff and decent overall numbers(H/IP, BB/IP, SO/IP, ect.). There have been few can't miss prospects of Miller and Jackson's calibur. Most scouts feel that both are going to be similar to Prior with their ability to come into the majors and dominate from day 1(even at 20, 21, 22). You need to follow the majors a little more closely, because Jackson actually pitched in the majors last year and is right now scheduled to be in the starting rotation, so I don't know where you are pull this they won't help in any way for 2004. Furthermore, in a small sample size, Jackson was pure dominating in his couple of starts at the end of the year(a sign of things to come). He could easily win the 5th starters job and put together a very impressive season. Miller was also considered being called up at the end of last year before they decided to call up Jackson instead. Miller probably needs a little time in the minors, but he certainly does have the stuff and command to play a major role sometime in 2004. Please don't let their age fool you. That is one of the reasons that these two are unique cant miss prospects and compare favorable to Prior. There is no way that Evans gives up both Miller and Jackson at this point. Prospects are unproven potential, but prospects of these calibur are very rare, especially in a deal that could net you a player for only one year. Mota is a great pitcher. Sure it took him a while to develop, and it was his first great year, but if you have seen this guy pitch you would understand why Evans doesn't want to give him up and why KW is pushing hard to get him. You might find a couple of scouts that would argue that Mota's stuff is actually better then Rivera.

Miller and Jackson for Maggs would be an unbelievable deal. Not only do the Sox get possible 2 of the top 5 pitching prospects IN BASEBALL, but they would free up ALL of Maggs 14M, which could then be sent on other needs. Any Sox fan that wouldn't do that deal is semi-retarded. The only problem is that there is no way that LA would even THINK about doing that deal, thats how one sided it is. If the Sox are lucky they will get Perez and one of Miller/Jackson for Maggs/Nomar. That Perez, Mota, and 2 top prospects(one being either Jackson/Miller) was pure speculation/wishful thinking from local papers/fans. LA would probably laugh at such of a deal.

I am not sure if LA would prefer Nomar to Maggs. If you talk to Dodger fans, than you will find that surprisingly most would prefer Maggs over Nomar, which is one of the reasons why I think the Sox might be better off holding onto Maggs(I think the LA deal address more of the Sox needs both personal wise and financially). The one reason why LA might give up more for Nomar, is because that Maggs will most likely be taken off the market(assuming that Boston keeps him) which leaves LA with even fewer options to significantly improve their offense. With that said, I agree with the original post. I will not be completely upset if the Nomar-Maggs deal doesn't go down, especially if the Sox are including a couple of pitching prospects that some rumors say they are. I think there would be too many things hinging on the Sox ability to move Nomar in a deal right after, and with the news that there is tension between Williams and Evan that could rule the Dodgers out of the mix. That could leave the Sox with few options for Nomar and still over budget. Sure the Sox could move other big salaries, but most of those guys have little trade value and there value would probably be hurt even more by the fact that the Sox are almost forced to move salary if they get stuck with Nomar. Part me of just wishes that something will be finalized(not necassarily the Maggs-Nomar deal) so we have a better understand of where this organization is heading for 2004.

This stuff has been too crazy...I need a nap after pulling an all nighter studying for finals and staying up after the exam following these rumors...I am going to ask MLB to move the winter meetings back a week so I am not so distracted from my finals