1)Quiroz
2)Rios
3)Gross
4)McGowan
5)Bush
6)Adams
7)Hill
8)Vermilyea
9)Perkins
10)Arnold

Baseball America are currently listing the top prospects in each organization. The Blue Jays list should be released in late December or early January. We could turn this into a contest to see who can match BA.

Gerry,

I think we can comfortably outperform Baseball America in this regard.

1) Rios
2) McGowan
3) Quiroz
4) Gross
5) Arnold
6) Bush
7) Adams
8) JFG
9) Hill
10) Perkins

I tend to rate a prospect on their proximity to the majors, therefore Jason Arnold comes before David Bush and Ford- Griffin is ahead of Hill even though I believe Hill has more potential.

1. Rios
2. McGowan
3. Quiroz
4. Hill
5. Gross
6. Bush
7. Adams
8. Arnold
9. Griffin
10. Banks

I really like Hill. Granted it's very early and he hasn't shown a lot of power as a pro yet but I think at minimum he will be an excellent two-way third basemen with gap power and if he can stay in the middle infield he has tremendous value. That's why he gets the nod over Gross who should be a solid hitter for a corner outfielder but has to show a bit more power before I move him up.

The other decision was whether McGowan should be ahead of a young power hitting catcher; I decided if he keeps his command and health then yes. He has real ace potential along the lines of Doc and we haven't seen him at his ceiling yet. Quiroz has taken a tremendous leap for two straight years and he could well vault himself to the top of the list if he progresses half as much in 2004.

Banks ahead of Vermilyea was a tough choice but I'm giving the edge to the projected first rounder. The guy that really fell off for me this year was Arnold and I was almost considering not ranking him but really all he needs is a bit more command to be on par with Bush.

1. Dustin McGowan
2. Guillermo Quiroz
3. Alexis Rios
4. Dave Bush
5. Gabe Gross
6. Jason Arnold
7. Russ Adams
8. Brandon League
9. Aaron Hill
10. Jamie Vermilyea

1-3 and 4-5 could be ranked differently among themselves if it was a different organization with different needs

I agree with Geoff first five and their interchangeability (sp?).
1.Rios
2 McGowan
3 Quiroz
4 Gross
5 Bush
6 League
7 Griffin
8 Arnold
9 Perkins
10 Hill

I am not considering pitchers without a full season under their belt and Adams and Sequea are not as solid as to be that high.

1. Gross
2. Quiroz
3. Rios
4. McGowan
5. Hill
6. Adams
7. Arnold
8. Bush
9. Vermilyea
10. Griffin

1. Quiroz
2. Quiroz
3. Quiroz
4. Quiroz
.
.
.

Oh, sorry.

1. Quiroz
2. Rios
3. Gross
4. Adams
5. McGowan
6. Bush
7. Banks
8. Hill
9. Vermilyea
10. Arnold

I made some mistakes in my midseason picks. I had Arnold and Griffin ranked far too highly; while I like Arnold, he hasn't shown excellent control in situations where he couldn't blow by the league. Griffin still hasn't shown (despite that teasing 18-game stint at Norwich two years ago) that he's adjusted to wood bats.

Quiroz I had at #5, but that was legit. Keeping the pedal to the metal in the second half, and the postseason revelation that the lung had been a problem for a while, moved him to #1.

I have too many pitchers on this list, but in rating prospects I like to emphasize the potential stars at the expense of players who will likely deliver more value, but don't have the same star potential. In point of fact, none of the pitchers on this list are *likely* to be stars, or even average starters. Each of them, though, has a non-zero chance at stardom, Arnold excepted. So while I'm trying to stick to an "expected future value" approach, this isn't exactly right. A "expected future value" list would probably go Quiroz-Rios-Adams-Hill-Gross, then start with McGowan and Arnold for the pitchers.

If Cash were eligible on this list, I think he'd be in with Vermilyea and Arnold at 9-10. I have Banks and Vermilyea ranked a touch too highly here, but I'd rather have them in as opposed to the more pedestrian, lower-upside players who would take their places.

1. Rios
2. McGowan
3. Gross
4. Quiroz
5. Hill
6. Adams
7. Bush
8. Arnold
9. Griffin
10. Rosario *

* would be top 3 if he was healthy. but still too good for me to not rank him here. he'll have this year to recover and year following to pull of what those before him have done: have great years the 2nd year following the TJ-surgery. expect him to be in Tdot mid 2006

i think i'm the only one who hasn't ranked quiroz in the top 3. i've seen him play in person and i can't even begin to tell u how good he is, but matter of fact, i could say the same things about the guys i listed 1-3.

1. Rios
2. Magowan
3. Quiroz
4. Bush
5. Gross
6. Hill
7. Arnold
8. Perkins
9. Adams
10. Peterson

Rios numbers to me are just too good to pass up as the #1 guy. Rosario would have been in my top 10 but I stuck to guys who played this year. Jon Ford Griffin hasnt really shown in his numbers the hitting prowess he is supposed to have so I left him off the list. Hill to me already shows far more promise than Adams and I like Peterson as a sleeper closer in 2005. The Jays last 2 drafts have been so good that a top 20 list would be easy to complete which bodes well for the coming years.

1. Rios
2. Magowan
3. Quiroz
4. Bush
5. Gross
6. Hill
7. Arnold
8. Perkins
9. Adams
10. Peterson

Rios numbers to me are just too good to pass up as the #1 guy. Rosario would have been in my top 10 but I stuck to guys who played this year. Jon Ford Griffin hasnt really shown in his numbers the hitting prowess he is supposed to have so I left him off the list. Hill to me already shows far more promise than Adams and I like Peterson as a sleeper closer in 2005. The Jays last 2 drafts have been so good that a top 20 list would be easy to complete which bodes well for the coming years.

1. Rios
2. Magowan
3. Quiroz
4. Bush
5. Gross
6. Hill
7. Arnold
8. Perkins
9. Adams
10. Peterson

Rios numbers to me are just too good to pass up as the #1 guy. Rosario would have been in my top 10 but I stuck to guys who played this year. Jon Ford Griffin hasnt really shown in his numbers the hitting prowess he is supposed to have so I left him off the list. Hill to me already shows far more promise than Adams and I like Peterson as a sleeper closer in 2005. The Jays last 2 drafts have been so good that a top 20 list would be easy to complete which bodes well for the coming years.

1. Alexi Rios
2. Guillermo Quiroz
3. Dustin McGowan
4. Gabe Gross
5. David Bush
6. Jason Arnold
7. Russ Adams
8. Brandon League
9. Francisco Rosario
10. Ty Godwin

None of the 2003 draftee's made my list because of limited playing time, and competition level. And unless a pitcher looks really good, I am hesident to put him on a list if he hasn't at least pitched half a season at high-A. And Godwin over Griffen, while Griffen has more upside, I think he is likely to be a platoon 1B/DH, while Godwin looks like a starting CF or LF(but not on the Jays). Basiclly comparing Robert Fick to Johnny Damon

Kristian, no stuffing the ballot box. It really is splitting hairs to separate the top guys; I put the catcher and pitchers first, then the outfielders, then the infielders. There are some exciting guys nipping at the heels of my 8-10 choices, which is a happy thing.

1. Quiroz
2. McGowan
3. Bush
4. Rios
5. Gross
6. Hill
7. Adams
8. Griffin
9. Arnold
10. Banks

Sorry about that guys, my work laptop seems to have went postal on me. Just 1 vote!

1-rios
2-mcgowan
3-quiroz
4-gross
5-bush
6-arnold
7-vermilyea
8-banks
9-hill
10-griffin

1. Gross
2. McGowan
3. Rios
4. Quiroz
5. Bush
6. Hill
7. Adams
8. Arnold
9. Vermilyea
10. Vito

1. Alex Rios
2. Gabe Gross
3. Guillermo Quiroz
4. Dustin McGowan
5. Aaron Hill
6. Russ Adams
7. David Bush
8. John-Ford Griffin
9. Vince Perkins
10. Francisco Rosario

- Gross for his all-around ability
- Hill over Adams for slightly better power potential, defense
- Tough exclusions: Banks, League, Hanson, Peterson, Vermilyea

I reserve the right to pick less than ten players as I can't really see more than the ones listed as being "great" prospects at this point:

1. Rios
2. Quiroz
3. McGowan
4. Adams
5. Gross
6. Griffin
7. Arnold

i realize that adams plays a premium position... but for me he hasn't done enough with the stick to warrant a top 10 spot in a deep system like toronto's.

looking at the lists, my opinion is in a very small minority. are my expectations too high because of his draft position?

are my expectations too high because of his draft position

No, it's right to have high expectations b/c of his high draft position. But it's that same high draft position which, for me, makes me give him the benefit of the doubt.

Remember that Adams had a long development curve. His first two years of college were not overly impressive, though he hit for a good average.

Adams tore up Auburn in his first month, which was good. He battled high A in his second month, which was not so good.

He then proceeded to hit very well at high A in the first half of 2003. 279/380/388 doesn't look all that great, but it's damn good for the FSL, a league that KILLS hitters. It was a damn sight better than John-Ford Griffin could do in the FSL.

He kept that up, more or less (OK, a little less) at New Haven.

He hasn't done badly. What moves Adams ahead, for me, is that those people I know who have seen him (and whose opinion I trust) thinks he has a super glove, and pretty much any non-Toronto source tends to agree. A glove man at short who hits like Orlando Hudson is a very valuable player, and I think Adams can do that.

My picks:
1. Rios
2. Quiroz
3. McGowan
4. Bush
5. Gross
6. Banks
7. Vermilyea
8. Arnold
9. Sequea
10. Adams

I'm comfortable with picks 1-5. Afterwards, it gets really dicey; you could just as easily pick League, Perkins, Isenberg or Marcum, and you wouldn't get any argument from me. Below double A, it's just too hard to predict. Josh Banks could end up as Josh Beckett or as Josh Towers by the time he arrives.

1.Rios
2.Quiroz
3.McGowan
4.Bush
5.Gross
6.Banks
7.Arnold
8.Rosario
9.Griffin
10.Chiaravolloti

I know Vito probably won't be on the list but after the season he had I just can't help but be intrigued by him and this is the main reason why i gave him the #10 spot on my list. I hope he proves all his criticizers wrong and shows that this was not just a one year fluke and that he is the real deal.

So suppose you've got a top pitching prospect, he's 24 years old, and he starts the season breezing through AA lineups. You figure 35 innings with a 1.53 ERA is enough of that, and you promote him to AAA. He struggles: 4.33 ERA in 121 innings, K/BB 1.78, K/9 6.14, HR/9 1.20.

This, as may have guessed, is Jason Arnold. And being the over-acheivers that you are, you've already guessed that next I'm going to compare him to somebody else.

Suppose you've got a top pitching prospect, he's 23 years old, and he starts the season breezing through High A lineups. You figure 37 innings with a 1.67 ERA is enough of that, and you promote him to AA. He struggles: 4.54 ERA in 134 innings, K/BB 1.46, K/9 6.97, HR/9 0.87.

This is Tim Hudson. He's done OK since then.

I'm not trying to say this tells us anything about Jason Arnold's future; You'd probably be able to find a successful major leaguer to point to in comparison to any prospect in the minors. But it does seem to me that Arnold's stock has fallen incredibly far here in the Box, based on his less than stellar showing at AAA (and some other players breaking out). I admittedly paid very little attention to the minors before this season, so maybe historical precedent says that this downgrading of Arnold is justified. But I'm not ready to discount him right out of the Top 10 just yet, or imply that he has zero chance of stardom.

My Top 10, with the corollary that I don't believe you can actually slot players into singular spots with any degree of accuracy:

1. Alexis Rios
2. Guillermo Quiroz
3. David Bush
4. Dustin McGowan
5. Jason Arnold
6. Gabe Gross
7. John-Ford Griffin
8. Russ Adams
9. Aaron Hill
10. Brandon League

Oops, I forgot about Aaron Hill. He'd be somewhere in the 6-8 slot.

Jonny, I absolutely agree. At the beginning of the year I honestly felt Arnold would be pitching in the big leagues at some point in 2003 and I was as big a fan as any of the Jays trading for him (I followed him through the Yankees' system).

But the prospect lists are constantly shifting. At the beginning of this season how many would have placed Rios and Quiroz as two of the top three prospects on a good 90% or more of the lists? At the beginning of the year I might have listed Arnold as one of the top 4. And why I hesitate to compare him to Tim Hudson is that Hudson always threw in the low-to-mid 90's as a starter. Arnold is high-80's more often than low-90's which makes me concerned for his mild control issues in AAA.

All this said, there's every possibility that David Bush and Dustin McGowan will not be big success stories in AAA either and they may see their stock drop in 2004. Pitchers are just very hard to project. There's a decent chance that one of those starters will be ready to help the Jays in July, I just can't say with any confidence which it will be. So I'll give preference to the hot hands for now.

Excellent thread!
Craig B: The only thing in the whole thread that really shock me was Adams in the top five. Thanks for explaining your reasoning. If his ops ups 800 everything will be fine. Oh and you really believe that there is no such thing as a pitcher prospect...:)

Quiroz
Rios
McGowan
Gross
Bush
Hill
Arnold
League
Griffin
Sequea

I think that Rios will be the better player over Quiroz but the positions make Quiroz more valuable in my opinion. I feel quite confident about the top 5 being the right top 5 (in other words I think there is a drop off after 5 to a lower tier of prospects). After number 5 I think you could make a case for about 10-12 prospects filling in the 6-10 spots and not go far wrong. I have trouble giving pitchers below AA much value for all the much discussed reasons on this site, but League's age has to be taken into account in my ranking.

I worry that Arnold is ranked too highly but I still have a feeling that he will be a useful major league pitcher even if his numbers of last year had a look of Mike Smith about them. The number 10 spot came down to a choice between Adams and Sequea for me. I have to give the nod to Sequea because they posted nearly identical numbers, with Sequea doing it at a higher level (with no real age difference between the two).

Right now the bottom of my list for position players all look to me to be role players at the major league level (ie. Adams and Sequea look like utility infielders and Griffin will have difficulty holding down a regular corner outfield or 1st base job). I think some of the A ball and below pitchers have a chance to be better than that but the risks for each of them getting from where they are to the pros is too great at this point to put them higher.

In sum, I would say the Jays system is strong because of the star quality of the top 5 and it is deep in young pitching prospects but its pretty thin in legitimate big league prospects in position players

In a list that that will doubtless be examined by future Jays historians for its stunning ineptitude, here's my top ten:

1. Rios
2. Quiroz
3. McGowan
4. Hill
5. Gross
6. Arnold
7. Bush
8. Griffin
9. League
10. Chiaravolotti

Like many people, I think the first two are well ahead of the pack. I'm excited about the others, though the Vito pick is one I'm almost sure will make me look foolish, but only Rios and Quiroz really have made me sit up straight when reading the news from Syracuse and New Haven this year.

1) Quiroz
2) Rios
3) McGowan
4) Gross
5) Bush
6) Vermilyea
7) Hill
8) Peterson
9) Rosario
10) Banks

Five more I think would be top 10 in any AL East list besides Toronto's.
Adams, Arnold, Vito, Perkins, Griffin.

) Quiroz
2) Rios
3) McGowan
4) Gross
5) Bush
6) Vermilyea
7) Hill
8) Peterson
9) Arnold
10)Adams

Robert,

Why are you so sure that we can outperform BA in this regard? BA's list last year was:

1. McGowan
2. Werth
3. Cash
4. Rosario
5. League
6. Rios
7. Adams
8. Chulk
9. Gross
10. Quiroz

BA's list contains all of your current top five (Quiroz, Rios, McGowan, Gross, Adams.) In fact, if I have my facts straight, Arnold and Sequea weren't in the Jays system when BA made up their list (and of course Hill and Vermilyea were not yet drafted), so the only guy on your list who BA neglected to mention last year is David Bush.

I'd be interested to see if you could find a single person on this board who was nearly as bullish as BA on McGowan, Rios, and Quiroz last offseason. (I know that I certainly wasn't.) From my perspective, we're all latecomers to that party, and we should show some deference to those who were there first. Moreover, if BA was indeed smarter than us last offseason, we shouldn't be surprised if they're smarter than us again.

John

... or as bullish on Cash and Werth (it cuts both ways).

I wouldn't say placing Quiroz at number 10 is bullish, considering that the depth in the system last year was far worse than it is now: that's equivalent to ranking someone 17th now.

Cash was, I think rated too highly, based on his performance through 2002.

IMO, BA's rankings of the pitchers are too high in comparison to position players, considering the brittle nature of pitchers.

Why do I think we can be better than BA? The reasons are twofold:

1) Collectively, BB readers/authors have chewed over information coming from the front office, scouting reports, BA itself and other analysts. We also have looked at and analysed performance numbers extensively. We focus on Toronto's prospects, whereas BA (of course) has to look at every organisation.

2) BA doesn't really delve deeply into performance numbers. They rely on scouting reports that evaluate tools. Their organizational top 10 lists (which rely on scouting) are inconsistent with their league rankings (which are based on polling the managers of those leagues).

great thread.

thanks for the info, craig.

i am happy to hear your reports on adams' glove are so high. his k/bb ratios have been excellent and i hope he can parlay that into success at AA and above.

Most of BA's guys work like dogs and the publication/site/radio improves itself each year, but John Manuel's placing of certain Jays last year always seemed uneven. Chulk ahead of Gross, regardless of his '02 struggles? (Chulk still doesn't do anything for me.) And Werth at #2? His best value to Toronto may have been in a trade that never happened when his "buzz" was at it's peak.

Quiroz hit a couple of homers last night, tops in Venezuela's winter league with 9 in around 85 AB , .333 avg and only 5 bbs...
I hope that Werth gets the place of Tom Wilson in 25 roster, third catcher, fifth OF and right bat from bench, and he could pinch run too.
John N on BA overlooking Bush, I believe they have the policy to pass on first year draft pitchers unless they are Prior...
Andy M, regarding AL east top prospects most of them come from Devil Rays quarters, they are really well stacked...

I don't feel comfortable rating players below AA, so this list will be short.

1 - Rios
2 - Quiroz
3 - McGowan
4 - Bush
5 - Gross
6 - Arnold
7 - JF Griffin
8 - Adams

Hill and Vito the Triple Crown Guy deserve honourable mentions, and I'm going to keep an eye out for Sequea as well.

I think Quiroz is a more valuable prospect for the Jays, but I have to go with Rios and his .352 average for #1. McGowan and Bush (and Arnold) stand out like a sore thumb when compared to the Jays' other AA pitchers.

I don't rate Gross that highly right now, but I may be being too harsh on him: he could take off at Syracuse this year. I also suspect that I may be being too harsh on Arnold, too.

Back from Thanksgiving (US) travels and just catching up, here goes:

1. McGowan
2. Quiroz
3. Rios
4. Gross
5. Bush
6. Griffin
7. Arnold
8. Peterson
9. Vermilyea
10. Banks

I'm probably higher on pitching than I should be, but I can see I higher ceiling with those players over Hill and Adams.

To me, the top 3 are clear and all have All Star potential. 4 & 5 are also clear to me, and I think they can be really solid, above average players. 6-10 (and really 6-15) could be put in any order.

1. Alexis Rios
1-A. Guillermo Quiroz
3. Dustin McGowan
4. Gabe Gross
5. David Bush
6. Russ Adams
7. Jason Arnold
8. Josh Banks
9. Adam Peterson
10. Aaron Hill

1. Rios & Quiroz: These guys are as close to a dead-heat as you can get, but Rios gets the slight edge because he gets on base more (.350 is .350), has more speed and plays a less punishing position. But a 21-year-old power-hitting catcher with a cannon arm and good walk totals can be no worse than 1-A on this list.

3. McGowan: He and Bush are also at similar points in their development, and there's not much to separate them. But McGowan is much younger and has better stuff: his ceiling is substantially higher. Put it this way: when David Bush was 21, he was saving 16 games as a junior for Wake Forest.

4. Gabe Gross: I know, the power isn't yet evident, and maybe I'm too excited by his late-season and Team USA performance. But HR power always arrives last, and Gross has wheels, a strong arm, line-drive power and walked 83 times in fewer than 500 ABs at AA and AAA last year.

5. Bush: Triple-A will tell us a lot, but Bush has never in his career been overmatched. He's struck out a batter an inning and five times as many as he's walked. He's a little lower down because he's older and probably won't dominate -- but the wild card is that he's a recent convert to starting.

6. Adams: Everyone here knows I'm an Adams believer. He's not going to be as spectacular as the others on this list, but he's going to produce runs with his bat and legs, save them with his fielding instincts, and help teams win. That said, he's the best of the "second division" of prospects.

7. Arnold: Those who have counselled patience with Arnold are right to do so. I'm coming to believe that the bullpen may in fact be in his future; but I trust no one here would dismiss the value of a solid reliever who could deliver two innings every time out. He's only a couple of key adjustments away from rotation success, too.

8. Banks: I'm also leery of over-promoting Low A-Ball prospects, but Banks is for real. This time next year, he'll be in Manchester after posting a season reminiscent of David Bush's 2003. Had Jamie Vermilyea been a starter this past season, he would've been ranked in this position.

9. Peterson: Don't overlook this guy. He throws in the mid-to-high 90s with solid breaking stuff, and he appears to be cut out for the closer's role. He may not lead the Blue Jays in saves next year, but by 2005 you can pencil him in for 35.

10. Hill: This may be a pessimistic prediction, because once he adds the power, he's going to be a middle-infield force. But he's neither close to the majors nor carrying a particularly high ceiling, and someone has to finish 10th.

Also, let's not over-diss BA here. Their pre-2003 Top Ten was very respectable, and their Next Ten even more so:

11. Gabe Gross
12. Guillermo Quiroz
13. Mark Hendrickson
14. David Bush
15. Dominic Rich
16. Miguel Negron
17. Chad Pleiness
18. DJ Hanson
19. Tyrell Godwin
20. Tracy Thorpe

I think they did pretty darn good last year.

1. Alexis Rios
2. Guillermo Quiroz
3. Dustin McGowan
4. David Bush
5. Gabe Gross
6. Aaron Hill
7. Jamie Vermilyea
8. Josh Banks
9. Russ Adams
10. Jason Arnold

Like many other people, I think the list breaks down pretty easily into three groups:

A. Rios and Quiroz
B. McGowan, Bush, and Gross
C. Everyone else, including a half-dozen or so guys who didn't make my top ten.

I'm a lot more confident about the 1-through-5 order than about the rest.

1. Rios
2. Quiroz
3. McGowan
4. Gross
5. Bush
6. Arnold
7. Banks
8. Hill
9. Adams
10. Vermilyea

1. Rios
2. Quiroz
3. McGowan
4. Gross
5. Bush
6. Adams
7. Hill
8. League
9. Arnold
10. Griffin

1. Quiroz - GQ's hitting would make him a prospect at any position. Factor in that he's a catcher, and a damn good one at that, and he's going to have great major league value.

2. Rios - I see a lot of similarities between Alexis and what VDub was supposed to be, which is a line drive hitter with 20 HR power. Obviously, Vernon has exceeded those expectations. Will Lexi?

3. McGowan - Isn't it great to finally have 3 prospects who could legitimately be #1 on many teams?

Big gap here...

4. Gross
5. Bush
6. Adams
7. Arnold
8. JFG
9. Sequea
10. Hill

It's tempting to rank Vermilyea and Banks but judging a pitcher after one professional season is like shooting monkeys in barrels before they hatch, or something like that.

Quiroz received player of the week honours down in Venezuela. If only I could understand the rest of the article! (The Babelfish translation doesn't help too much this time. Jabonoso???)

Rotoworld has their Jays top 10 up today! I'm not sure how much to read into their rankings after seeing last year's list!)

Well, seeing as no one has posted in a couple of days, some observations. It seems that Bauxites on the whole pretty clearly like Rios, Quiroz, McGowan, Gross and Bush as the top 5 in that order, although Rios and Quiroz are very close. Eyeballing the results, it looks like Hill, Banks, Adams, Arnold and Vermilyea make up 6-10 in some order.

To me, the significance of the list is the closeness of the best talent to the majors. Last year's BA list featured three players who were likely to see time during the year in Syracuse or Toronto- Werth, Cash and Chulk. The top 5 this year are all likely to be in Syracuse or Toronto this year (as are Adams and Arnold), and are obviously much better prospects than last year's.

Regardless how the off-season goes, the second half of next year should be very, very interesting.

top 5 this year are all likely to be in Syracuse or Toronto this year

I would not be surprised, at all, if none of the Jays Top-10 play in the Show in 2004. Gross has the best shot, with Arnold a possibility as well, but there are no sure things for 2004 in my mind.

2005, however, is a totally different story.

"My Top 10, with the corollary that I don't believe you can actually slot players into singular spots with any degree of accuracy:"

Sorry to be so pedantic about this, but the word you are most likely looking for is caveat, not corollary.

corollary:

1) A proposition that follows with little or no proof required from one already proven.
2) A deduction or an inference.
3) A natural consequence or effect; a result.

caveat:

1) A warning or caution: ?A final caveat: Most experts feel that clients get unsatisfactory results when they don't specify clearly what they want? (Savvy).
2) A qualification or explanation.

Source: Dictionary.com

For myself, I would be shocked if none of the top 5 appears in Toronto in 2004, at least by September. I won't be surprised at all if Gabe Gross is the starting rightfielder in 2004.

I can't even begin to get into how unnecessary Post 49 was, Robert. Language is for communicating. He got his point across. We knew what he meant.

If we're going to start correcting everyone's English, Jabonoso is in real big trouble (as am I, probably).

I'm just trying to help out. When I misuse a word, I am grateful when/if someone corrects me.

Spicol,

It's nice that you can be indignant on behalf of someone else, but have you ever considered that Jonny might appreciate my post? If he felt insulted, I'll apologize and feel bad about it. I was just trying to follow The Golden Rule (Do onto others as you would have them do onto you).

Consider it considered.

Well, as the party guilty of using "corollary" where I did indeed mean "caveat", here is my reaction: Thanks. I'm a big fan of proper grammar and spelling. (In fact, if I spoke up every time I'm annoyed at the abuses of English I see here, you'd clamor for me to shut up). The quality of the writing in the Box is a major reason I like the Box. Yes it was an unnecessary correction, but I don't see any reason for me to be insulted by it. This particular error on my part was like a typo, where I 'knew' what the two words meant, the wrong one just came out somehow.

I give Jabonoso a mulligan on most things as I assume English is not his first language. It is curious that he has a far bigger vocabulary than you would expect of someone who struggles with grammar.

Is "clamor" an American spelling or does it never have a 'u'?

Johnny, I'm quite sure that clamour does have a "u" in the British and Canadian spelling, but for years I spelled remuneration, "renumeration". Ugh.

And I stupidly spelled your name with an "h"...

I thought caveat was made out of fish eggs and eaten by rich people. I always learn something in the Box.

And I'm no Czar of caviar.

Yes, Spanish is my mother ( and father for the fact ) tongue. I used to live in Vancouver for about five years and learned some English. Unfortunately I do not practice it enough and together with old age It is slipping away fast and steadily.
Back to Baseball: League and Perkins seem to be behind Banks and Vermilyea in most Bauxites evaluations. i still put my money on them, they will be right on track sooner than later. My guess is that other sources like BA et al will rank them quite high ( 4,5,0r 6 ) in BJ's top ten.

Pitchers are always a toss up from year to year. I wouldn't be surprised to see these guys ranked pretty high by BA as League has always been highly thought of Perkins had that very impressive run to start the year. But good major league pitchers are more often defined by the things these guys have lacking right now...command and quality secondary pitches. I think Perkins is just lacking the command but he doesn't really have an offspeed offering. And League still needs a consistent breaking ball and changeup.

The good thing is they'll be in a pitching staff surrounded by guys with pretty good control and pitch variety from the start of the year. Hopefully people like Banks can have a good influence on them.

Jabonoso,

It is interesting how few people listed League and Perkins. My reasoning, more or less, was that Vermilyea and Banks have significantly more chance of becoming David Bush than League and Perkins have of becoming Dustin McGowan. On the other hand, the omission of Perkins might make a whole bunch of us look dumb a year from now -- he's as good a breakout candidate as there is in this system. He threw almost twice as many innings last year as ever before, which could account for the decrease in strikeout rate after his promotion to Dunedin. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him do to the FSL what he did to the Sally last spring.

John

I guess they were tired and maybe learning new pitches ( like a change up ) and that made them more vulnerable. Let see next year...

Jabonoso,

I'm in the same boat with my Spanish. It is my mother tongue but it is gradually slipping away from me due to lack of use. My Chilean spanish is also strained when I try to read baseball articles out of Venezuela or Central America.

Vermilyea's debut half-season was truly remarkable. His performance at Auburn was the 17th most dominant relative to league among all minor leaguers (100+ BF) in 2003 by my reckoning.

Baseball America will prefer a hard thrower like League 96-98, or Perkins 94-96 to average speed guys like Vermilyea. The logic for League is 96-98 is fast at the Major league level and a second pitch should be able to be picked up by him. Perkins is a bit tougher, control is harder to fix. Perkins would be rated lower for that reason. Although Vermilyea was great at Low A, hitters at higher levels will not be fooled as easily, and he better have two other above average pitches to go with that 90 mph fastball.

Vermilyea was great at high A too: 21.2 IP, 21 H, 1 HR, 2 BB, 25 K. He is over a year younger than David Bush was at this time last year. His strikeout rates in both Auburn and Dunedin were higher than Bush's, and his walk rates in both Auburn and Dunedin were lower.

You don't compile an eleven to one strikeout to walk ratio over two levels without having a hell of a lot going for you. I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't consider Vermilyea to be a better prospect right now than Bush was a year ago.

I'm not discounting the value of scouting. But in Vermilyea's case we're not talking about someone with pretty good numbers. We're talking about fire and brimstone.

Heres a question. Who will be Baseball Americas obligatory 'tools' pick? I vote for Jason Werth.

Rios has a pretty good shot at being the tools pick. That's basically what seperates him from Grady Sizemore at this point.

MLB's draft site has Vermilyea throwing a heavy sinker in the 88-89 mph range capable of breaking bats (similar to Justin Miller's) and a sharp slider he can throw for an out pitch. But another article I read this year had Vermilyea's fastball reaching up to 93 mph and described him as throwing four or five pitches for strikes which makes him sound like a first round calibre pitcher.

Whatever the truth is, it's very difficult to fake a performance that good over that many innings. Particularly the control part. I expect him to follow Bush's pattern and reach AA by mid-season at the latest. There's going to be quite a collection of arms in low-A and high-A so I don't think the Jays will be shy about promoting a couple of guys to Manchester two months into the season to spread things out a bit more.

Jason,

I'm not sure what tone you meant to use in post 68. In any case, I wouldn't make fun of BA for 'tools' picks. The five guys on their list last year who might be considered 'tools' picks are

1. McGowan
2. Werth
5. League
6. Rios
10. Quiroz

The stock of three of those players (McGowan, Rios, and Quiroz) has risen dramatically over the past year. League's prospect status probably hasn't either risen or fallen much, and Werth's has dropped considerably. All in all, BA's five 'tools' picks are worth much more in aggregate right now than they were a year ago.

A purely statistical analysis of the Jays' system a year ago would have rated those five players much lower. It also would have been less accurate.

John

Foxsports.com ranked Hill and Adams #6 and #9 respectively in their list of top SS prospects.

6. Aaron Hill, Blue Jays, Age: 21

The Jays drafted Hill with the 13th overall pick of the June draft, and he immediately became their shortstop of the future. His defense is solid, if unspectacular, but it's his bat that will carry him. At LSU, he showed outstanding power and patience. This past season, he was excellent in the short-season NY-Penn League and earned a late-season promotion to the Florida State League. There he struggled, but a first-year pro will do that in the pitcher-friendly FSL. He's got loads of offensive potential, and he'll probably be near the top of this list next year. ETA: 2005.

9. Russ Adams, Blue Jays, Age: 23

Adams, the Jays' top pick of 2002 out of UNC, will probably wind up at second base, but for now he's a shortstop. He's drawn walks at every level, but hasn't hit for power or average since leaving the NY-Penn League. Aaron Hill is blocking him at short, and Adams may not have enough power for second. It looks like his future will be as a quality utility infielder at the highest level, and that's still a valuable role. ETA: 2005.a

How can Hill be blocking Adams when Adams is ahead of him on the depth chart. I still think that opf the two, Adams is more likely to wind up playing short in the majors.

Hill has the better bat, more power so he could move to third or short. Adams is more of a singles hitter so he could move to second, but doesn't have enough pop for third.

Both have had their defense questioned. Hill is ahead of Adams because of his bat.

It is hard to keep Adams as a top prospects with his age and his numbers. Blue jays fans are putting a lot of faith and hope into our baseball people words. i like our options for 2005 with O'dog in his prime, Sequea, Adams and Hill around the second base bag and hopefully we still have Woody around as a solid bench bat and utility glove combo. Depth chart wise we are very solid in OF, midle infield and catcher from 2005 and on . Also deep in pitching both starters and bullpen. Depth is only lacking in corner IF, power bats and lefty starters. Not bad at all...
Cristian, drop me a mail whenever you feel like it. I have very good Chilean friends from the dark days ( now all of them are back in Chile ) Saludos

I'm curious to see how Hudson would handle 3B. He doesn't have the bat for it yet but I don't see any other contingency in case Hinske's D doesn't improve. Pond doesn't count. He should be a DH.

I'm curious to see how Hudson would handle 3B. He doesn't have the bat for it yet but I don't see any other contingency in case Hinske's D doesn't improve. Pond doesn't count. He should be a DH.

Hill is a contingency for third base.

I think Hill is the heir apparent at 3B.

Rios has started to hit like Quiroz in the winter league. He hit homers 4 and 5 over the last few days, and depending on what you make of BA's reporting of his stats, he's slugging either about .650 or about .800.

Yes both are red hot and getting a knack on the long ball swing upper cut. You get the same confussion with the local press...

Now, hopefully Mike Barnett will spend some time with them in spring training to work on their plate discipline. I'm quite confident that Quiroz will be a good pupil, just tell him and he'll catch on. Now, with Lexi, I think that I'd use a different technique to get him in the right frame of mind. He's going to see a lot of junk pitches over the next 15 years, and he needs to treat them with disdain (kind of the way Eddie Murray did), rather than as a challenge to hit (the way Yogi Berra approached it). Barnett seems to be a fine coach, and I'm sure he'll figure it out.