Rios will be called up in early August, struggle early, but hit fairly well in September on his way to .275/.320/.410 figures in 148 at-bats.

I have Gitz's love anyway (I keep it in a litle box) so whoever gets next closest can have my prize.

I'll go up just a few AB's and say 175-all post All-Star break.

114. I have no reason.

http://economics.about.com
Yeah, I need something to take my mind off the Primaries. I'm an Edwards supporter. :(

I say he hits 7 homers, 7 doubles, and gets 7 walks in his 77 2004 AB. Mainly coz I like the number 7.

Cheers,

Mike

I'll say zero. I'd say it has a better chance of being right than any other single integer.

Lexi will get 220 ABs after the All-Star break and go .260/.330/.480. Like Craig, I think he'll struggle and strike out a fair bit in August, but get his bearings in September.

http://economics.about.com
I'll say zero. I'd say it has a better chance of being right than any other single integer.

Well, yeah, if you restrict yourself to non-complex real integers.

I'm surprised nobody has picked 3.4 - 2i yet.

Cheers,

Mike

Alexis Rios at AA in 2003: 352/402/521, 39 walks, 11 HR and 54 extra base hits in over 500 AB.

Derek Bell at AAA in 1991: 346/424/532, 57 walks, 13 HR and 47 extra base hits in just under 500 AB.

*pause here, take some time to ponder over that*

I'm a big, big fan of Lexi's and I think he's going to be great. I had faith and agreed with the scouts on this one when he was a singles hitting hacker in A ball. He's fulfilling on that promise. But I think some are going overboard on the praise. Let's see how he does in AAA before annointing his feet.

Comparing prospect development to cooking, sometimes you need to set the flame on medium, see what happens and adjust your heat accordingly. If you start on high and cook the entire time with a big flame, most things are going to burn.

http://www.grum.ca
I think he'll get a couple of token appearances during September and the law of small numbers tells me he'll have a nice set of fluke numbers. That will lead to a resounding call for him to be a starter in 2005:

18AB 7H 1D 0T 0HR 2BB 9K .388/.450/.444

I gotta say 300. I think he is going to be called up sometime in the middle of July around the All Star break.

57

I think Rios will only see some September at-bats with Gross getting first dibs on any possible early call-up. Gross's age and having already spent time at AAA will give him the first shot at the Show.

One hundred and dickety two. We have to use the word "dickety" because the Kaiser stole our word "twenty."

80 ABs along the lines of .310/.440 (OBP, SLG). I think Gross will be the one to approach 250 ABS (I'll say .330/.430).

As other people have said, I don't see Rios being more than a September callup, as he's second in line for an outfield slot behind Gabe Gross. He won't come up to sit on the bench, so he'll only be called up if two outfielders become injured or ineffective.

Given this, I'd guess that he'll get about 40 September at-bats.

http://www.immune26.tv
Unless there are serious injuries... I GUARANTEE Rios will not have enough at bats to qualify 04 as the first of his 6 years before free agency. (How ever many at bats the rules of MLB deem that might be...)

So, considering that I agree with those who say that Gross will be called up first, I expect Rios to get 26 at bats in September. Accordingly, I also predict he will hit less than 26 homers.

This crystal ball gazing is making me hungry. I think I'll have Tim Horton's donut...

I'm a big, big fan of Lexi's and I think he's going to be great. I had faith and agreed with the scouts on this one when he was a singles hitting hacker in A ball. He's fulfilling on that promise. But I think some are going overboard on the praise. Let's see how he does in AAA before annointing his feet.

Good point. Phil Rogers commented that Rios could be the "next great Blue Jays outfielder," using Vernon Wells as a model, but the implicit suggestion is that the Blue Jays have been producing stud outfielders one after the other. I've mentioned this before here on Da Box, but outside of Wells and Shawn Green, the number of good outfielders to emerge from Toronto in the last 15 years or so isn't large. This is not to say that Rios won't be great -- he probably will be -- but that, as Spicol says, we should reserve a bit of caution.

I'm going to have to side with Roger Davis on this one and I'll go with 37 ABs.

on another note, ESPN reports that Paul DePodesta's about to be named Dodgers GM, which sucks because there's now yet another team vying for the kinds of players Ricciardi & Co. covet. A bit late in the pre-season though, so it'll be interesting to see how DePodesta chooses to turn that team around...

Baseball America just listed their top five systems & the jays don't appear. The Dodgers on the strength of their 2003 draft focusing on high school draftees rates in their top 5. Strictly college players with limited upside is not the way to go long term and I can't wait until we start looking for impact players once again.

Not surprising, considering how tools-based BA's approach is.

I've never seen any evidence that collge players as such have limited upside as compared to high schoolers (lots of today's baseball elite are college products). J.P. and company obviously think their draft picks have lots of upside - time will tell who (J.P. or BA) is closer to the truth.

Strictly college players with limited upside is not the way to go long term and I can't wait until we start looking for impact players once again.

I couldn't agree more. I hope the Jays start drafting more high-upside players who take four years to clear A-ball and stop drafting college players with limited upside like Hill, Banks, Bush, and Gross.

I don't have a problem with a 1st or 2nd round college pick but totally ignoring the high school ranks as the Jays did in 2003 lets a lot of projectable players be available for other teams. The 2003 draft yielded one position player, Hill, with any upside. Snavely had a very so so debut. Every year lots of college players in short-season leagues tear it up only to have their stuff not play so well in High A and AA.I think you have to take that in context when you assess what the 2003 draft picks have done so far. Josh Boyd said that after a full year of playing he would no longer give the Jays such a high draft rating in regards to 2002. I hope Grant & Sakivicas
will develop this year to justify their picks. Like many things in life a balanced approach is the way to go.

Derek Bell at AAA in 1991: 346/424/532, 57 walks, 13 HR and 47 extra base hits in just under 500 AB.

*pause here, take some time to ponder over that*

Hey Derek Bell had a pretty good career. A couple of .300 EQA seasons. Eventually injuries did him in. He won the opening day job for the Jays in 1992 only to have the same injury as Hinske. When he returned, Gaston had given his job to Maldonado. Eventually the Jays got rid of him because he was a bit of a headcase.

485 at bats and he competes for Rookie of the Year. Sometimes the hype is justified and he had no problems with Double A or Winter Ball so with a hot spring he either makes the team or gets the call late April early May.

Rios is called up in late August after Frank Catalanotto is dealt, but he splits time with Gabe Gross. Seventy-one at-bats, mostly against lefties, a bunch of extra-base hits, maybe three walks.

We've kicked around the Jays' draft philosophy several times here, as has the local media and indeed the rest of baseball -- so much so that JP Ricciardi's been quoted in the mainstream press as saying he's tired of talking about it. My sense is that the Jays have a draft strategy that, at a distance, might look a lot like college-only or skills-heavy -- but that it's actually more complicated than that. I have a feeling they're going to surprise us a little bit with their choices next June, and that our view of their philosophy will be different three years from now than it is today.

The 2003 draft yielded one position player, Hill, with any upside.

A guy wins a Triple Crown in his league, and yet has no upside. That, my friend, is a very strict way of looking at things.

The 2003 draft yielded one position player, Hill, with any upside.

Hell, they hardly drafted any position players in the first 15 picks. If one or two turn out that's great.

And, these were thin drafts for position players. Here were the ten position players chosen immediately after Russ Adams in 2002: Nick Swisher, James Loney, Denard Span, Jeff Francouer, John McCurdy, Sergio Santos, John Mayberry, Matt Whitney, Jeremy Brown, Mark Teck.

None of the players seen by other teams as alternatives to Adams are burning up the prospect lists. Maybe one or two will end up as better ballplayers, but it is entirely conceivable that Adams ends up as the best of the bunch. It's early yet to judge the crew that followed Hill, but I have a hunch that the answer will be the same if we look at the 2003 draft (Brian Anderson, David Murphy, Brad Snyder, Conor Jackson, Matt Moses...) in January, 2005.

While I agree that it may be time to adjust the drafting strategy somewhat, criticism of JPs 2002 and 2003 draft seems quite misplaced. If anything, JP's approach to the draft, from his personal methodical and thorough review, to his obvious use of Keith Law's statistical information, is his strongest point as a GM.

Jordan, it may not be so complicated. I think it's as simple as aquisition of assets.

By amassing a stable of arms, and proving within a year or two that they are nearly ready for the majors, the Jays will put themselves in a very strong position to deal for whatever they need. I'm sure other teams are already sniffing around Vermilyea, Banks and company. J.P. says that it will take two more drafts to get the system where he wants it, and that will mean they've gone way beyond filling holes, to a valuable surplus of talent. How they reach that goal isn't as important as when; in my view, that's why the emphasis has been on collegians.

No disrespect to Dean's opinion, but how long will it be, in the most optimistic scenario, before Brian Grant, perhaps the best high school player in his state, has any trade value? Three more years? Four? Not wishing the young man anything but good luck, "never" remains a plausible answer. Sure, a college pick can also be a bust, but this organization simply didn't have time to wait for 18-year-olds to develop. For every Roy Halladay, there's a Mark Prior.

For every Roy Halladay, theres a Mark Prior.

Very true, but look where they were taken in the draft. Yes they were both 1st rounders but Prior was #2 overall and Halladay was much lower. The Priors are gone by the 5th pick. Vito winning the triple crown at Auburn was great but that doesn't make him an impact prospect, I read he has trouble with sliders and I'm sure he will see a lot in A ball.I wish him well as I do all the 22 and 23 year old college guys with average fastballs. Some will make The Show and others will be used as trade bait but they are at best end of the rotation & middle relief guys. A balance is needed, impact players have to be developed. Would anyone here trade Rios for any of the college pitchers taken?

Hey Derek Bell had a pretty good career. A couple of .300 EQA seasons.

All in all, Bell was an average major leaguer with a couple of good season and that's still valuable. But Phil Rogers and others aren't projecting Rios to merely be average, they're projecting him to be in a higher echelon of players based on one great season and a nice report card from the scouts. My point was simply that looking at Bell's 1991 in isolation, because just like Rios he wasn't anything but a tools player pre-91, people thought that he was destined for greatness and it didn't end up to be so. Why are we so convinced it will happen with Rios? Anything can happen.

The Priors are gone by the 5th pick.

The Brandon Webbs aren't. Brandon Webb was an 8th-round pick out of college. All the Diamondbacks got from that pick was the best rookie pitcher in baseball last year.

Vito winning the triple crown at Auburn was great but that doesn't make him an impact prospect, I read he has trouble with sliders and I'm sure he will see a lot in A ball.

I didn't say he was an "impact prospect". He isn't yet, that's true, though he is absolutely as close to one as possible for a guy drafted below the 10th round. But *you* said he (and the other 2003 picks) had NO UPSIDE. That is just totally, utterly false.

Would anyone here trade Rios for any of the college pitchers taken?

You think every HS player is a Rios? That is not a reasonable standard.

Look, no one is saying that an all-college strategy is the only one right way to go. There are tons of good prospects taken out of high school, and the Jays wil eventually start signing more. For now, my sense is they see things in some college players (in particular pitchers) that other teams don't, and that's why they have been so insistent on drafting mostly college players.

Time will tell whether they are right. You can't seriously take issue with the success that the team has had in the 2002 and 2003 drafts, they've been extremely good. If those players start hitting a wall, I'll be happy to re-open the question about how good they are.

Spicol, hitting .350 with some power, some speed and good defence in CF in the Eastern League at age 22 makes Rios a Grade A prospect. On the other hand, he doesn't look like Jeter, Chipper Jones, Manny Ramirez, Frank Thomas, Vladimir Guerrero or Carlos Delgado did at the same stage. There are easily observable ways that they were significantly better prospects.

The somewhat comparable prospects at Rios' current stage of development would be roughly Derek Bell, Shawn Green and Alex Gonzalez, although after his winter league performance you could make a case that he has more power than any of them.

The thing is that right now there are no position prospects who scream "can't miss star", like players in the first class above (20 year olds hitting .350 in double A with secondary skills...). Rating Rios as the number 2 prospect in baseball right now does not mean that he is a sure-fire star; as much as anything, it says something about the absence of these prospects on other teams.

Craig B, my point is that a balance is essential, we can trade examples all day of someone being drafted in a certain round and making it to the show, my favourite is Woody Williams. Brandon Webb is not Mark Prior. My point on trading Rios is that he is viewed as someone who may be an impact player and *I* stand by my take on the past two drafts that impact players are not there. Hill projects as an everyday player and there are some arms that will as well but I don't see any Vernon Wells or Roy Halladay comparisons there.

Dean, I definitely understand your point. All we can do is see how these drafts turn out! Generally, if you can develop one star every other draft, you've done quite well. So we'll see if anyone in these classes becomes a star player.

The pre-Ricciardi Jays habitually drafted high-upside high school pitchers. Here's a list of high school pitchers drafted by the Jays since 1990 who have had a reasonable major league career (more than a cup of coffee or a Rule 5er). Three were first rounders.
Steve Karsay, Chris Carpenter, Roy Halladay, Mark Lukasiewicz, Jose Silva, Gary Glover. I'm not even sure Lukasiewicz even qualifies. So that's it. Maybe I'm exaggerating but the Jays have more interesting pitching prospects now than the years 1990-2001 combined.

And the list of college pitchers includes??? Home grown talent to win the Cy Young - Hentgen and Halladay. Check out the Jays top ten at Baseball America. I do have a preference for high school guys because their potential ceilings have not been established and there is therefore a greater chance of developing an impact type player than someone who is 3 or 4 years older at the time of the draft. The risk is much greater as well and it comes back to taking a balanced approach.

And the list of college pitchers includes???

They didn't pick any. Most college pitchers were late round picks. The only early picks was Koch and Crabtree. Both of whom made the majors.

Pete Bauer was a 2nd rounder and I think Mike Smith was a single digit draft choce.

There was also a college guy taken amongst the high school busts of '93 in the 3rd round from Tulane. The year Shannon Stewart was drafted they had two 1st round picks & used the other on Todd Steverson, a college guy. Pete Tucci was a supplimental pick and was a college guy as well. I have not looked at any lists and am doing this from memory so there are probably more as well. Their high college picks weren't that successful either.

Yeah. Thought of those afterward. But they were exceptions. The vast majority were highschoolers. All data compiled by those who study this sort of stuff indicates that highschool pitchers are a poor risk compared to College pitchers. That's not to say that a Halladay type will not be drafted out of highschool.

I agree that high school guys are more prone to not turn out but their upside is greater. Brian Grant as a 7th round pick in 2002 is a great example of drafing balance. Six college guys had already been taken and the college talent pool had to be getting thin so it was a great time to call his name. Will he develop into a pitching prospect, who knows? The Jays are going to have to wait longer on him but the potential upside is higher than a college guy taken in the 7th round. Don't be completely taken in by 1st year short-season stats put up by college guys.

Don't be completely taken in by 1st year short-season stats put up by college guys.

I won't. Don't you be taken in by scouts insisting that high school players have higher upside. It's not true - we're talking about the same group of players.

I have seen a lot of high school guys flame out but when it works the rewards are huge. Lets look @ the Jays lineup & their top prospects. If Halladay and Wells had gone to college they would have been long gone by the time the Jays called out their 1st round pick in their junior years. I guess my point is that unless you have a top 5 pick the chances of getting a dominating player like Roy diminish greatly. Both him and Vernon were considered as 2nd round material when the Jays drafted them. Mcgowan was a supplimental pick and I think there are few college players taken after him with his upside. Did the Jays get lucky, sure but you have to be prepared to roll the dice at times.

I would say that Jamie Vermilyea taken in the 9th round last year has a higher upside than Brian Grant.

Grant vs Vermmilyea

Vermilyea could very well end up the better prospect , as a Jays fan I hope they both end up in the show, but he is also two years older than Grant. Because of the make-up of the Jays farm team Grant has been playing against older and more advanced competition the past two years. This year is when Grant has to develop into a prospect as he will be facing players his own age.

Grant has been in rookie ball for two years (Medicine Hat and Pulaski). There is no lower level of competition. The competition is mostly highschoolers. And he hasn't been any good.

Overlooked in this high school-vs.-college debate is the international aspect. The Jays recently added a teenage lefty to the system, without it costing them a draft pick. J.P. compares Chi-Hung Cheng to about a third- or fourth-rounder, and he was able to find the resources to sign him. A member of the Taiwanese national team that qualified for the Olympics, the young man will probably start at Low-A, and the trip to Athens will no doubt be a tremendous experience for him. He's a longer-term project than a 23-year-old college guy, but he was considered worth the risk.

This organization is the farthest thing from one-dimensional; they will continue to find innovative ways to stockpile talent, including similar prospects from Asia and Latin America. As I've said many times before, they have nothing against 18-year-olds, and after two more "practical" drafts, should be in a position to take more chances.

To re-hijack this thread, "One hundred and dickety two" is by far my favourite guess for Rios' AB in the Show this year, but I'm with the group that thinks he'll wait his turn. Crikey, the kid hasn't played above AA. Werth may not surrender his job without a fight, and Gross is probably next in line, so barring an injury to a Jays starter, Lexi will get a September callup. Then, in the heat of a pennant race, he won't play much. The ouija board says dickety-nine at-bats, one of them a game-winning 3-run pinch-hit homer on October 2 off Felix Heredia.

Vermilyea is already a better prospect based on age-performance than Grant. I think this is nearly indisputable, if you leave tools talk out of it.

Well, someone has beaten me to 40 so I'll say 36

Many have beaten me to the punch about Groos coming first - I actually thing that with a well placed injury to Cat or slump from Sparky we could see Groos up here for most of the second half.

Oh, and BTW, I'm gonna say that when the Jays give up on Towers in June that Bush will be the gu who takes over that spot.

I don't think JP will try to add Q, Gross, Rios, Bush, McGowan, and maybe even Adams all to the team at one time in a year he's hopeing to contend. Therefore, I'd consider it a pretty good bet that at least one OF and at least one SP and possibly Quiroz as well, will spend noteable time in the majors this year.

Oh, and BTW, I'm gonna say that when the Jays give up on Towers in June that Bush will be the gu who takes over that spot.

I'll say Justin Miller. Actually I can't decide between Miller and Bruce Chen. I guess it depends on who's doing better. Anyway, the point about Miller and Chen is that there's no service time issue with them, while there is for Arnold, Bush and McGowan.

Matthew, what makes you think this time around will work for Chen? I ask in all seriousness, because I really don't see what in Toronto will make Chen's ability connect with the ability to pitch well.

I have no real reason to think that Chen's going to succeed in this organization. But if they need a starting pitcher in a hurry, I'd rather see them try Chen again than bring up Arnold or McGowan or Bush or Miller before they're ready. (If one of those four is ready, then Chen can wait for September.) And, who knows? Maybe he'll turn it around. Sometimes pitchers do.

One thing I didn't think of. Chen isn't on the 40-man roster, is he? Obviously, that makes a difference.

No lower level of minor league play than Pulaski and Medicine Hat - there are actually two such leagues of which the Jays have no representation in and those are the short season complex leagues in Florida and Arizona. Back to the Grant thing, tools are very important when evaluating talent. A pitcher with fringe stuff but good command will flourish at lower levels in the minors but as he advances his success will diminish. Thats why pitchers with plus velocity are given more opportunities as they can get away with mistakes more often. No pitcher can consistently fire fastballs down the middle and not pay. Before Grant gets dismissed lets see what happens this year as it would be his college draft year. Lots of guys develop into prospects based on their junior performance as they grow into their bodies and harness their stuff. One of the reasons the Jays have shifted away from prep players is the time line, yeah I know and the risk.

Dean,

Believe it or not, velocity just isn't that important for a major league pitcher. Throwing 88-90 with great movement and command is a lot better than throwing 96 with some movement and suspect command.

Almost no one, ever, has become a quality major league pitcher after starting his career with the lack of success Grant has. Almost all future major league pichers do well in short season baseball in their first or second year (in the case of particularly young pitchers). That's pretty much the minimum threshold for being considered a prospect.

And Escobar got his contract because of great command? I'm a former fastball catcher who faced Gene Mcwillie, he used to throw no hitters for Canada @ the worlds, and facing someone with plus velocity was a lot harder than someone with average velocity and movement. Yes I know different game but you are still trying to hit a ball with a bat. Yes Maddux and others have done well with average velocity but look at the majority of guys who are deemed #1 starters and they have plus velocity. Josh Towers has average velocity and plus movement and command but I'd rather run Escobar out there every fith day. Facing someone with average velocity does not cause a batter to grip the bat a little harder and commit his swing earlier and this gives the plus velocity guys a big advantage because it makes their secondary pitches look much better.
Back to Grant, if all you are going to do is look @ stats then we should expect the entire Auburn staff in the show within 2 to 3 years.
Grant is facing older competition so I'm not going to write him off yet. As I've said he does have to step up now as he will be facing competion his own age this year. I saw several Medicine Hat games before they moved & it was very easy to spot the college guys and there were a lot of them. Nick Tempesta comes to mind. Rosario did not have great numbers @ The Hat but everyone likes him now.

Usually the guys who throw 96 with some movement will strike out more than a batter per inning in the Pioneer League. A young pitcher like this can struggle for several years to get his control, but ultimately be very successful (Randy Johnson, Sandy Koufax, Nolan Ryan...). Grant hasn't been striking 'em out at this rate, so he's got to work on both fooling hitters, and then gaining control. That makes him a longshot.

There is no doubt he is a long shot but so is everyone at that level. I got started on the Grant thing by advocating a balanced draft approach and I still stand by it. There are going to be busts with both approaches and there will be pleasant and unpleasant surprises because player development is very volatile.

Apparently, Justin Miller's penchant for tattoos hasn't stopped. ... The #5-hopeful, who has vowed to continue with body art until he runs out of body parts, had another one done just recently. This one reads, "I LOVE BILLY KOCH". (I heard this on a 680 News sports update this morning).

I'm not sure if he lost a bet, or perhaps he has some interesting connection to Billy other than the fact that they were traded for one another! Surely, there's an investigative reporter among us who can dig up a better reason...!

You gotta love the blue jays stories that hit the airwaves in the middle of February! How many days until full ST camp opens?

My point is that the Jays spent 10 years drafting Brian Grants. Let's see how the new approach works.

Haven't there been studies on HS vs college players in the draft?

I suppose if someone had some time on their hands they could look at the All Star teams over the past 10 years and see what players were taken as college players vs HS players.

Also, it'd be interesting if you broke that down further into players taken after round 1 (the reasoning being that every team had at least one shot at them as opposed to the ARods and Priors of the world that are no-brainers at the top of the draft).

Fair enough, but you can't argue with Wells, Stewart, Halladay, Shawn Green, Alex Gonzales, and Hentgen off the top of my head. Yes there were lots of flame outs in between and I just don't want them to turn their backs on a very deserving talent pool.

All star game content - I think the 2003 game consisted of about 65% non-college players. This included non-drafted players and those who were selected & did not play. - I just read that somewhere. It is only one year and by no means a viable sample to make an assumption on.

65% non-college all star make-up came from the Elliot interview @ Blue Jay way. For what its worth him & I have the same draft approach - balanced, not excluding either group of players.

"...and the trip to Athens will no doubt be a tremendous experience for him."

Does anybody have an idea about the dimensions of the parks they'll be using? Anyone have any idea of the park factors in Athens either?

So that means it was about even between drafted high schoolers and drafted collegians.

"So that means it was about even between drafted high schoolers and drafted collegians"

Yeah, balanced, meaning that excluding either group is depriving your system of some very good baseball players and that is the purpose of a minor system - developing baseball players who have the potential to perform at the highest level. Proper scouting of both groups is essential.

The problem for the Jays is that there is a much bigger pool of highschoolers to scout. The Jays have a limited budget. They're approach is to find the 50% of all stars from a much smaller pool of players (college) and they can do this on a much smaller scouting budget.

Because the Jays are a small market club is the reason they can not afford to ignore the prep players. Again, take a look at the stars of this team, the top rated prospects and see where they came from. Look at Millwood's salary, the Jays can't afford that so they have develop their own stars. After the 1st round it is very hard to draft a front end rotation guy. Is it possible? Sure, but after the 1st round is when you gamble on the prep player because everyone wants a sure thing with their 1st round pick and the McGowans are then available.

I am talking about pitching. Hitting is less clear where the advantage is. The Jays were continually gambling on prep players after the first round in terms of pitching with a few exceptions. The net result is no prep pitcher drafted since Halladay was drafted in 1995 has had more than a cup of coffee with the Jays. I'm praying that MacGowan is the first and even he's going to be in his fifth season of pro ball. The tactic in terms of pitching simply has not worked. If you're going to expend the extra cash to scout prep pitchers and expend extra cash to sign them since they are generally more expensive to sign than college pitchers then you must have results and the Jays simply have not had them.

The net result is no prep pitcher drafted since Halladay was drafted in 1995 has had more than a cup of coffee with the Jays. I'm praying that MacGowan is the first and even he's going to be in his fifth season of pro ball. The tactic in terms of pitching simply has not worked.

Not necessarily. If McGowan turns out to be a great pitcher than the approach was slightly successful. If you produce one great pitcher every five years that's not bad, provided you produce a couple other decent pitchers. Consider that Dean is advocating a balanced approach to drafting where you would also draft some safer college pitchers. If you are able to maintain a depth of talent while grabbing some risky potential stars, then that makes sense. I think J.P.'s drafts have gone very well so far. We needed to get some reasonable depth very quickly, but also J.P. has also drafted very good players relative to most teams. Once, he has the system where he wants it, I'm sure he'll look at some riskier potential stars while maintaining depth and that seems like a smart approach.

I think J.P.'s drafts have been fine so far. A mostly college approach is fine if you pick good players. However,

whoops. Disregard that last paragraph.

There is a trade-off in drafting college pitchers and that is their ceiling is more predictable & those with the highest ceilings are gone early in the 1st round. It great that the past 2 drafts have provided much needed depth but there are no Halladays there. Bush projects as a middle to back end rotation guy and Banks as a 2nd or third starter. If the Jays can keep churning these guys out that is great, but none of them have made the show yet. Mcgowan and company haven't yet either but he projects as another Halladay. For those dismissing Grant soley on numbers check out Rosario's stats at Medicine Hat as a 21 year old. Back to McGowan the fact he has spent all his development time in the Jays system is a good thing. No one is going to let him throw 130 pitches in a regional final game. Compare McGowan's age with Adams and Bush.

I think you guys need to stop talking bad about Brian Grant. He is my friend and he has a lot of baseball skills. I haven't read this for a long time and everyone has their own opinion. Sure his record 3-11, 4.71 era, and 134 hits in 105 ip is not impressive in rookie ball but he is only 19. A lot of guys in rookie are 21, 22, 23 so he is still a prospect. He throws high 80's-low 90's and when he is on can be very effective. He has good mechanics and I think he just needs confidence and a string of good luck and he should be fine when he is mentally focused. He's only 19 entering this season and he's filling out his 6'3 1/2 frame and getting stronger. This year is a big year for him so I wish him well. It takes time but I don't think you guys should write him off yet.