i wonder who said that! any guesses people??

jokes aside i think that the jays do have some great pitching prospects in the system. can't wait to see what rosario does when he gets back.

Even though the system is strong i still feel the jays will have to sign Escobar this off-season or find some other pitching help via trade if they are to compete in 2005

I think that the number one priority for the Jays should be signing Escobar, almost regardless of cost. 3-4 years with an average of 4-5 million per , I think, would be alright. Do you think he would settle for a deal opposite the norm? By that I mean, say, 3 years where in the first year he makes 7 million, the second year he makes 4 million, then 3 million? I know this idea was raised here before so I'm not stealing someone's credit, but it sounds like an excellent idea. Or maybe a big signing bonus and base salaries of 4-4-4 or something of the like. Any ideas?

The idea that a Rich Harden or Jimmy Gobble can help in a pennant race or the playoffs remains hard for me to accept; many youngsters thrust into those situations will suffer career setbacks. But there's a more important factor to consider in any roster move these days, unless you're the Yankees.

"Not only are you talking about pitchers who make a difference," said Billy Beane, "but they're lost cost, which allows most teams to do something else at another position. It's sometimes hard to gamble on those young pitchers, but they're the lifeblood."

Excuse the typically bad Gammons typing and proofreading; I think Billy probably said "low" cost.

I do agree with the premise that some great pitching is on the horizon, and with the observation that plenty of it belongs to the Blue Jays.

Good point about gambling with throwing a rookie pitcher into the pennant race. I know some have thrived, but for every Barry Zito or John Lackey, there's a Rick Ankiel or Salomon Torres. In the latter cases, "career setback" is putting it mildly. LaRussa will probably second-guess himself on that one for the rest of his career. The pitcher's emotional makeup has a lot of bearing in this scenario.

Sheehan's column at BP yesterday was about pitching prospects, where he basically sticks to his 'there's no such thing as a pitching prospect' theory.

He looked at the BP top 40 Prospect list from 1999-2001 and only Prior and Soriano have had continued success without injury (looking at 32 pitchers).

So while Arnold, Bush and McGowan look like good candidates to start in the next year or 2 for the Jays, there's a good chance that 2 of them will flop or get injured.

http://economics.about.com
[i]Sheehan's column at BP yesterday was about pitching prospects, where he basically sticks to his 'there's no such thing as a pitching prospect' theory.

He looked at the BP top 40 Prospect list from 1999-2001 and only Prior and Soriano have had continued success without injury (looking at 32 pitchers).[/i]

Of course, this could just imply that Baseball Prospectus does a particularly lousy job of projecting pitchers. Did he look at the Baseball America list or other Top X ratings by other organisations?

Mike

http://economics.about.com
Whoops.. I used the About.com formatting instead of HTML. My bad.

Of course, this could just imply that Baseball Prospectus does a particularly lousy job of projecting pitchers. Did he look at the Baseball America list or other Top X ratings by other organisations?

No, just BP, although for the most part there aren't large differences in their top 40.

Here's the list, with his comments on each:

Career Career
Innings ERA Comment
Bruce Chen 453.1 4.59 Seven teams, four seasons
Octavio Dotel 477.1 3.68 Dominant reliever since 2001
Matt Clement 921.1 4.47 High ERA, walks until age 27
Rick Ankiel 232.0 3.84 Variety of problems
Brad Penny 604.2 4.24 Nagging injuries
Ed Yarnall 20.0 5.40 Ended up in Japan
Scott Williamson 326.0 3.01 Lost year-plus to TJ
Freddy Garcia 931.2 4.08 Successful through mid-2002
Rob Bell 435.2 5.99 Waived by pitching-rich Rangers
Roy Halladay 766.1 3.93 Rebuilt in 2000 (10.64 ERA)
Luke Prokopec 231.0 5.30 Out through 2003

Kip Wells 597.1 4.29 6.02 ERA in 2000
Tony Armas 493.0 4.11 Can't stay healthy
Matt Riley 11.0 7.36 Head case; still young
Ryan Anderson -- -- Might never pitch in majors
Eric Gagne 422.1 3.69 Best reliever alive
Jon Garland 514.0 4.64 On this list, a success
Mike Meyers -- -- Possibly a mistake selection
Ramon Ortiz 723.1 4.48 Healthy, but homer-prone

Josh Beckett 211.0 3.50 Blisters are main concern
Juan Cruz 180.0 4.15 More walks than runs allowed
Dennis Tankersley 51.1 9.29 Head issues
Jake Peavy 242.2 4.30 Looks good so far
Mark Prior 260.1 3.01 Arrived fully-formed
Nick Neugebauer 61.1 4.99 Injured
Carlos Hernandez 128.2 3.92 Out for 2003 (elbow)
John Stephens 65.0 6.09 Soft-tosser
Rafael Soriano 79.0 3.30 Good reliever; shoulder Qs
Ty Howington -- -- Assorted minor owies
Corwin Malone -- -- Back in A-ball
Kenny Baugh -- -- Overworked in college
Nate Cornejo 223.1 5.36 Bad team, awful K rate

Some of these guys are pretty good now, but only Prior--who I would consider separate from this group--and Rafael Soriano haven't met with either a scalpel or lousy performance since they were branded a pitching prospect.

But it's not even close to them being all flops though. I would take at least a dozen of those guys listed for my team. Maybe two of Arnold, Bush and McGowan may flop or be injured for one season, but it's not a precursor to the long-term outlook of these players.

I don't buy that list at all. BP is heavily invested in its motto ("no such thing..."), and I think they're bending reason here in order to maintain it. "Continued success without injury" is a pretty ridiculous standard with which to rate any list of prospects. To take a hitting example, has Barry Bonds had continued success without injury? If you judge pitchers on whether they're injury-free and effective from their first day in the majors, then your list will consist of Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux and that's about it. It's absurd to say Roy Halladay wasn't a successful prospect because he struggled badly out of the gate: he's one of the best pitchers in baseball today, he's a workhorse and every team would kill to have him as their ace. How does he not qualify as a succesful prospect?

If a minor-league pitcher graduates to the majors, improves as he goes, learns his craft and has even three or four solid seasons, then AFAIC he was a pitching prospect. That's an entirely reasonable definition, and most front offices would be thrilled if their young pitchers fulfilled it. BP is setting an unrealistic standard, for their own purposes.