Some folks like the Blue Jays' farm system more than others. At Baseball America, the Jays don't yet rank in the organizational Top Five; we'll have to wait till the 2004 Prospect Handbook is released to see where the club placed. But over at Baseball Prospectus, Toronto has made some true believers: a whopping six of their Top 50 Prospects are in the Blue Jays system.
http://firstport.com
Thanks Craig! That was a subscribers' article, no? Perhaps you should just provide the highlights, not the entire thing (just to cover da Box's rear end)!
Having said that, here are the top organizations (by number of prospects in the top 50):
1. Toronto (6)
2. Anaheim (5)
3. LA (4)
4. Milwaukee, New York (NL), and Pittsburgh (3) -- the Mets have THREE of the top 12!
More amazing is that SIX organizations had ZERO players in the Top 50: the Rangers, Cubs, Expos, Giants, Tigers, and Astros. Boston barely made it!
Bryan Smith, Wait Til Next Year, has his Top 50 Prospects (Top 90 if you scroll through...) and provides enlightening opinion and analysis of his prospecting criteria. 5 Jays make the list: Rios (#5), Quiroz (#22), McGowan (#24), Gross (#51), and Bush (#88).
Thanks Craig! That was a subscribers' article, no? Perhaps you should just provide the highlights, not the entire thing (just to cover da Box's rear end)!
Having said that, here are the top organizations (by number of prospects in the top 50):
1. Toronto (6)
2. Anaheim (5)
3. LA (4)
4. Milwaukee, New York (NL), and Pittsburgh (3) -- the Mets have THREE of the top 12!
More amazing is that SIX organizations had ZERO players in the Top 50: the Rangers, Cubs, Expos, Giants, Tigers, and Astros. Boston barely made it!
Bryan Smith, Wait Til Next Year, has his Top 50 Prospects (Top 90 if you scroll through...) and provides enlightening opinion and analysis of his prospecting criteria. 5 Jays make the list: Rios (#5), Quiroz (#22), McGowan (#24), Gross (#51), and Bush (#88).
Breaking down that top 50 list.
# of players in the Toronto system: 6
# of players in the New York (AL) + Boston + Baltimore + Tampa Bay systems: 5
Cool.
# of players in the Toronto system: 6
# of players in the New York (AL) + Boston + Baltimore + Tampa Bay systems: 5
Cool.
Steve, the Top 50 list itself is part of BP's springtime free-access offer -- kind of like getting the Pay-TV signals unscrambled for a while. Once it has served its promotional purpose, this article will likely be returned to its password-protected status. I don't think Da Box is in breach of any copyrights here.
And you can blame me, not Craig, if we are. :-)
And you can blame me, not Craig, if we are. :-)
the Mets have THREE of the top 12!
One is Matsui who, while technically is a rookie this year, I don't think I'd classify him as a prospect.
One is Matsui who, while technically is a rookie this year, I don't think I'd classify him as a prospect.
I agree, Kaz Matsui isn't a "prospect".
Incidentally, it was Jordan/Gideon, and not I, who posted this. I'm innocent, man!
Incidentally, it was Jordan/Gideon, and not I, who posted this. I'm innocent, man!
My mistake! And anyways, I wouldn't blame Jordan or Craig; I'd blame the Cabal!
Jim Callis @ Baseball America lists 3 Jays as part of his personal Top 50 prospects, Rios, McGowan and Quiroz. In the article he explains his reasoning for giving the Jays an 8th place ranking. He suggests that the Jays have plenty of depth and should some of that depth continue to develop the system would enjoy a higher ranking.
Didn't Callis also say something to the effect that the Dodgers placed higher because they had more pitching prospects. I think another way they rank the systems is based on the number of potential high impact prospects in the system. The Jays have plenty of good prospects but I think most analysts believe that many of them are not high impact (Superstars) but will be useful major leaguers.
2. Carlos Delgado- 1B- Toronto (141, 153, 160)- All Delgado does is hit. Carlos is the best left-handed hitter in the American League, and behind only Bonds and Helton in the Majors. Delgado led the league in OPS last year, as well as total times on base. That number is helped by the fact that he walks at least 100 times every season, so basically, he’s second to only Bonds as favorite sabermetric hitters. Delgado is a threat to approach a .600SLG every season, and nearly capturing the Triple Crown led him to being voted second in the AL MVP race. I believe this will be Paul DePodesta’s first target, and deservingly so.
Interesting comments from Brian Smyth. Entirely possible if DePodesta is willing to send the Jays some pitchers.
Interesting comments from Brian Smyth. Entirely possible if DePodesta is willing to send the Jays some pitchers.
I think the real story here is that there are only two Athletics on the list.
Which has got me thinking...
Given the excellent job Dan Evans did with the Dodgers' farm system, is it possible the DePodesta regime will take an intentional step backwards as they covet Swishers and Browns over the Greg Millers?
Which has got me thinking...
Given the excellent job Dan Evans did with the Dodgers' farm system, is it possible the DePodesta regime will take an intentional step backwards as they covet Swishers and Browns over the Greg Millers?
I am the commissioner of an 13 team AL-only 5x6 roto league entering our 7th season. The league is based out of Toronto. We are seeking two individuals looking to join a league with a history and future. One previous owner moved to Chicago, the other lost interest in baseball due to family committments. For more details, please contact me immediately at jay_s_perry@hotmail.com. Our draft is on March 14th. I look forward to hearing from you! Jay
14. Corey Koskie- 3B- Minnesota (121, 118, 121)- Corey Koskie has always been more than an average player, likely the reason his OPS+ has never dipped below 108. Quietly, Koskie is one of the more complete third basemen in the game, and a high walk total will win him over with stat-heads. Koskie’s OBP shouldn’t dip below .370 again, and while his SLG appears to be descending, I expect that number to rise to about .470. The Twins will likely let Mike Cuddyer play the hot corner after 2004, leaving Koskie to an ugly market.
Question:
How really bad off wouldthe drop be if we Moved Hinske to 1B ext year and paid Kosike 7 mil or so to play 3B?
I know it's a big offensive drop from Carlos but that's probably gonna happen regardless because we can't afford more than 11 or so which probably means the Dodgers win.
But, assuming we can't afford the Glaus/Chavez caliber of player, i seems to me Koskie would fit nicely into our team....
Question:
How really bad off wouldthe drop be if we Moved Hinske to 1B ext year and paid Kosike 7 mil or so to play 3B?
I know it's a big offensive drop from Carlos but that's probably gonna happen regardless because we can't afford more than 11 or so which probably means the Dodgers win.
But, assuming we can't afford the Glaus/Chavez caliber of player, i seems to me Koskie would fit nicely into our team....
How really bad off would the drop be if we Moved Hinske to 1B ext year and paid Koskie 7 mil or so to play 3B?
I know it's a big offensive drop from Carlos but that's probably gonna happen regardless because we can't afford more than 11 or so which probably means the Dodgers win.
point:
Will Koskie really get 7MM? He's 32 in 2005, and has never put up big time power numbers. I predict he'll get something like 5MM per year, which makes this scenario a little more attractive.
counterpoint:
Koskie is 32 in 2005. He's getting a little old...
counterpoint:
Isn't Cuddyer's defense at 3B supposed to be awful? Possibly worse than Hinske's?
counterpoint:
If Phelps does ok at 1B this year and Carlos walks, he's a much cheaper option than Koskie (Hinske stays at 3B).
http://economics.about.com
I guess Gitz wasn't the only one to notice the lack of the 2002 class of A's draft picks in the Top 50. From Rany Jazayerli's chat last night:
---
Tony (Danville, CA): I noticed that Jeremy Brown and Nick Swisher were both missing from any part of the Round table Prospect discussion. Can you talk about them, or any other A's prospects? Thanks
Rany Jazayerli: Brown and Swisher are both good prospects; they're both likely to have long major league careers. I just think the consensus is that they're both going to top out as average major league ballplayers at best; Swisher, in particular, evokes lots of comparisons to Scott Hatteberg within the group.
I think their prominence in Moneyball has polarized opinions on both sides of the scouting-performance continuum. But the bottom line is that they will probably end up somewhere in the middle: better than what Moneyball detractors would like, but not nearly as well as Moneyball supporters would hope.
---
Cheers,
Mike
I guess Gitz wasn't the only one to notice the lack of the 2002 class of A's draft picks in the Top 50. From Rany Jazayerli's chat last night:
---
Tony (Danville, CA): I noticed that Jeremy Brown and Nick Swisher were both missing from any part of the Round table Prospect discussion. Can you talk about them, or any other A's prospects? Thanks
Rany Jazayerli: Brown and Swisher are both good prospects; they're both likely to have long major league careers. I just think the consensus is that they're both going to top out as average major league ballplayers at best; Swisher, in particular, evokes lots of comparisons to Scott Hatteberg within the group.
I think their prominence in Moneyball has polarized opinions on both sides of the scouting-performance continuum. But the bottom line is that they will probably end up somewhere in the middle: better than what Moneyball detractors would like, but not nearly as well as Moneyball supporters would hope.
---
Cheers,
Mike
Well, I'm certainly not one to dismiss Phelps' presence on the team, I was just basing a scenerio on the sometimes floated notion that Hinske won't improve enough to stay at 3B.
I'd love for that scenerio to be wrong, because what I'd prefer to see is Werth turn into a pretty good hitter and he takes over (I'm convinced that with practice Werth would make an excellent defensive 1B) there.
I could live with Phelps playing 1B if his D was at least passable, but Werth needs a position anyway and he'd have to be a much better optionm defensivly if he'll just round into form with the bat, and I don't see any reason why he couldn't turn out to be an at least Kevin Millar-level hitter (with a little un-Millar like speed) and possibly more.
I'd love for that scenerio to be wrong, because what I'd prefer to see is Werth turn into a pretty good hitter and he takes over (I'm convinced that with practice Werth would make an excellent defensive 1B) there.
I could live with Phelps playing 1B if his D was at least passable, but Werth needs a position anyway and he'd have to be a much better optionm defensivly if he'll just round into form with the bat, and I don't see any reason why he couldn't turn out to be an at least Kevin Millar-level hitter (with a little un-Millar like speed) and possibly more.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/columnists/040224callis.html
A propos of Jurgen's comments about the Dodgers and A's recent drafts, COMN for a column by Jim Callis on the DePodesta/White team.
A propos of Jurgen's comments about the Dodgers and A's recent drafts, COMN for a column by Jim Callis on the DePodesta/White team.
Interesting, Mike.
Obviously, I'm not a Moneyball detractor. Just that I think Dan Evans clearly got worse than he deserved.
Sure, there are a lot of young, talented mind who are very qualified to run a Major League Ballclub (and DePodesta is certainly one of them), but Evans wasn't one of the old guard who deserved to be fired so unceremoniously to make way for them.
He's not Willliams, or LaMar, or Bavasi.
Obviously, I'm not a Moneyball detractor. Just that I think Dan Evans clearly got worse than he deserved.
Sure, there are a lot of young, talented mind who are very qualified to run a Major League Ballclub (and DePodesta is certainly one of them), but Evans wasn't one of the old guard who deserved to be fired so unceremoniously to make way for them.
He's not Willliams, or LaMar, or Bavasi.
Interesting point in the Callis article regarding how much money the A's and Dodger's spent on their draft picks. One reason I think DePodesta might be more inclined to take chances on high-upside high school players is that he has a larger budget to work with. And, I wouldn't be surprised if he (subconsciously, perhaps) wants to distance himself a bit from the perception that he would be a BB clone.
Interesting point in the Callis article regarding how much money the A's and Dodger's spent on their draft picks. One reason I think DePodesta might be more inclined to take chances on high-upside high school players is that he has a larger budget to work with. And, I wouldn't be surprised if he (subconsciously, perhaps) wants to distance himself a bit from the perception that he would be a BB clone.
Apologies for the double-post. Comcast's DSL is running a tad slow this a.m.
In the Callis article it states that both the Dodgers and Baseball America have done studies that show high school picks yield a greater percentage of above average big league regulars and all stars than college players. Back to my "tiresome point", as stated in the article because more teams are going college it is allowing more prep players to be available to teams willing to take them. The Dodgers system was pretty weak a couple of years ago as well and they have managed to stock it taking a different route than JP. Time will tell which route will have the greater payoff.
http://economics.about.com
Back to my "tiresome point", as stated in the article because more teams are going college it is allowing more prep players to be available to teams willing to take them.
If you want to do something a little less "tiresome", why not write an article on who the Jays should draft next year, and why. It may win you more converts than just saying the same thing a million times, like a four year old in a car chanting "ARE WE THERE YET!"
Cheers,
Mike
Back to my "tiresome point", as stated in the article because more teams are going college it is allowing more prep players to be available to teams willing to take them.
If you want to do something a little less "tiresome", why not write an article on who the Jays should draft next year, and why. It may win you more converts than just saying the same thing a million times, like a four year old in a car chanting "ARE WE THERE YET!"
Cheers,
Mike
because more teams are going college it is allowing more prep players to be available to teams willing to take them
This is true, and it may mean that the value pendulum will swing back to prep players at some point. However it's not as clear-cut as one might think, since the preference for college players is leading many prep players to opt for college and forgo signing altogether. A fifth-, sixth- or seventh-round pick out of high school may well prefer to take three or four free years of college (often worth more than his bonus would be) and take a shot at moving up in the draft at some point along the way.
There are always players who are not destined for more school... but I would question whether such players are always worth the money you have to pay for their talent.
Either choice is far from clear-cut!
This is true, and it may mean that the value pendulum will swing back to prep players at some point. However it's not as clear-cut as one might think, since the preference for college players is leading many prep players to opt for college and forgo signing altogether. A fifth-, sixth- or seventh-round pick out of high school may well prefer to take three or four free years of college (often worth more than his bonus would be) and take a shot at moving up in the draft at some point along the way.
There are always players who are not destined for more school... but I would question whether such players are always worth the money you have to pay for their talent.
Either choice is far from clear-cut!
Jurgen, I concur. While Evans might have done a better job of finding offensive role players at the right end of the defensive spectrum (first base, corner outfield), his overall work was pretty good considering the contracts that were there when he arrived. He deserves another shot.
The 2004 draft class is reportedly strong in college pitchers, so the pendulum will not have a chance to swing until 2005.
Mike Moffat - were you picked on in high school and does it now give you some kind of a "rush" to throw out personal attacks on people with different views than yourself. The article was about different drafting tactics and how two organizations may have used some of the same types of analysis to arrive at different conclusions. When a discussion presents itself I post my oponion - I don't get personal.
http://economics.about.com
Mike Moffat - were you picked on in high school and does it now give you some kind of a "rush" to throw out personal attacks on people with different views than yourself.
No, I was the guy picking on people. :)
How was that a personal attack, though? I didn't say anything about you, just what you were doing. It's pretty hard to argue that you haven't been harping on the same point ad infinitum since you started posting here.
The thing is, we *don't* have significantly different views. It's just that you need to move on and I'm not the only person holding that opinion. You've made your point. Over and over and over. We get it. Do you have another one?
Mike Moffat - were you picked on in high school and does it now give you some kind of a "rush" to throw out personal attacks on people with different views than yourself.
No, I was the guy picking on people. :)
How was that a personal attack, though? I didn't say anything about you, just what you were doing. It's pretty hard to argue that you haven't been harping on the same point ad infinitum since you started posting here.
The thing is, we *don't* have significantly different views. It's just that you need to move on and I'm not the only person holding that opinion. You've made your point. Over and over and over. We get it. Do you have another one?
I don't get personal
You just did! Did someone leave your toggle switch to "ironic"?
You just did! Did someone leave your toggle switch to "ironic"?
Wow, what depth in the Jays system. I would think that come mid year Hill, possibly Perkins, League and Banks plus a healthy Rosario would be in line to be on most top prospect lists. From all accounts Rosario is the one to watch this year and JP has been giving him rave reviews as someone to move up in a hurry. My take on the Jays drafting philosophy is this, when JP took over he needed to cut payroll and improve the depth of a weak minor league system. Sure it has produced some stars but the reality is we had little depth, and with budget being so imperative JP really didnt have the time to wait 3 or 4 years for a high school pitcher to reach Double A. He also wanted to lower the risk as much as possible with his selections hence the focus on college players, specifically pitchers. Most of the opinions that I have read on here now feel that once the Jay's depth has improved then they can start to look for more high risk/high reward picks which may include these high school pitchers. How can we argue with a farm system that is consistently now ranked in the top 10, has a combination of possible future stars( Rios, Magowan, Rosario) combined with players who can still contribute to the Jays success( Bush, Gross, JFG, Banks etc). Plus the trade possibilities are endless the deeper your farm system is.Jason Arnold has been wanted and moved because he was a more "safe" prospect than say a Colt Griffin would be. Guys like this are invaluable when trying to acquire talent that can put a team over the top. Anyways sorry for the long post guys just wanted to put my 2 cents worht in on a topic that is very dear to my heart!
I hope what Craig says happens -- that more player choose college -- because I'm one of those romantic idiots who thinks that education is important, and not just for improving one's chances to land a higher-paying job. (In fact I think that latter point is. But clearly the focus has shifted, at least in the U.S., from learning and expanding your mind to being almost a resume padder, like saying you were in MADD or something to help you get into USC, even though you only went to one meeting. Not that I did anything like that, of course.) Not only that, why NOT choose college? Even if you don't plan to study, like a reliable FSU football player, it's a better place to spend three years than riding crummy buses and visiting crummy towns like Tacoma and Fresno. Plus, who knows, you may learn a thing or two by accident.
It's true you learn from being on the road and from jumping into life, too, so I guess I'm stating a personal preference because I enjoyed college so much. Some people, for a change, agree with me: Tim Duncan forgo guaranteed millions to finish his junior and senior years, and when J.J. Stokes, who would have been a high first-round pick, decided to go back to UCLA for his senior season, his comment was "Why would I want to leave? This is a great place." (This one sound-bite turned out to be the greatest accomplishment of his NFL career.) Pete Carroll tells his players, roughly, that they will never have more fun than while you're in college: it's not fun when you reach the NFL, because while you're not working a real job per se, you're constantly aware it's a business. Carroll's philosophy has worked for USC -- the players DO have fun out there, and without the nonsensical trash-talk so pervasive in college football.
So far, the NFL has not allowed players to skip college, and I think that is a smart thing for football, but obviously, given the sheer volume of minor-leaguers, that's not possible to do for baseball. And, to get back to baseball, if going to college will improve your chances at being selected in the ML draft, as Craig suggests, all the better. I'd like to think, in my naive way, that they've also learned something, maybe by accident, it is true, that they might not have picked up had they started playing pro ball at age 18.
It's true you learn from being on the road and from jumping into life, too, so I guess I'm stating a personal preference because I enjoyed college so much. Some people, for a change, agree with me: Tim Duncan forgo guaranteed millions to finish his junior and senior years, and when J.J. Stokes, who would have been a high first-round pick, decided to go back to UCLA for his senior season, his comment was "Why would I want to leave? This is a great place." (This one sound-bite turned out to be the greatest accomplishment of his NFL career.) Pete Carroll tells his players, roughly, that they will never have more fun than while you're in college: it's not fun when you reach the NFL, because while you're not working a real job per se, you're constantly aware it's a business. Carroll's philosophy has worked for USC -- the players DO have fun out there, and without the nonsensical trash-talk so pervasive in college football.
So far, the NFL has not allowed players to skip college, and I think that is a smart thing for football, but obviously, given the sheer volume of minor-leaguers, that's not possible to do for baseball. And, to get back to baseball, if going to college will improve your chances at being selected in the ML draft, as Craig suggests, all the better. I'd like to think, in my naive way, that they've also learned something, maybe by accident, it is true, that they might not have picked up had they started playing pro ball at age 18.
Before anyone begins an investigation, I should say that I was in SADD, not MADD. I hope there are no Freudians out here.
Dayn Perry continued running down his Top 100 for FoxSports.com. Aaron Hill (#40) is the latest Jay to make the list.
So far, here are the Jays' rankings (with Rios, Bush, and McGowan coming soon):
40. Hill
43. Quiroz
47. Adams
51. Vermilyea
55. Gross
76. Vito
80. Arnold
I'd never heard of Dayn Perry until recently, but he sure has a lot of optimism (more than any other prospector) over the Jays' prospects, especially JP's draftees.
So far, here are the Jays' rankings (with Rios, Bush, and McGowan coming soon):
40. Hill
43. Quiroz
47. Adams
51. Vermilyea
55. Gross
76. Vito
80. Arnold
I'd never heard of Dayn Perry until recently, but he sure has a lot of optimism (more than any other prospector) over the Jays' prospects, especially JP's draftees.
MLB.com (Jonathan Mayo) presents its Top 50 Prospects based on the results of an AP-like polling system of members of the scouting community. Besides the Moneyball remarks, it was interesting to see that Canada is represented by 3 of the top 50.
http://economics.about.com
MLB.com (Jonathan Mayo) presents its Top 50 Prospects based on the results of an AP-like polling system of members of the scouting community. Besides the Moneyball remarks, it was interesting to see that Canada is represented by 3 of the top 50.
Oooh.. Mike Green isn't going to like this one. They've got Dioner Navarro at #40.
Cheers,
Mike
MLB.com (Jonathan Mayo) presents its Top 50 Prospects based on the results of an AP-like polling system of members of the scouting community. Besides the Moneyball remarks, it was interesting to see that Canada is represented by 3 of the top 50.
Oooh.. Mike Green isn't going to like this one. They've got Dioner Navarro at #40.
Cheers,
Mike
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=33
On the other hand, Rany Jazayerali at BP said that he thought that the #40 ranking for Navarro might be low. COMN.
I have nothing invested in Navarro..he's a Yankee prospect, after all. I just don't think that the scouts and analysts have adjusted to his significant improvement at age 19. Reading between the lines, I think that some analysts suppose that he won't get an opportunity until 2006 or 2007 because of Posada, and so have downgraded him for this reason.
I know that I'm in a minority of one, but I'd prefer having Navarro than Mauer. I think that Mauer's going to have difficulty hitting lefties in the majors and will see more than he's used to, and more importantly, I think that Mauer will be more susceptible to injury than Navarro because of his build. Neither would be in my top 5 though.
On the other hand, Rany Jazayerali at BP said that he thought that the #40 ranking for Navarro might be low. COMN.
I have nothing invested in Navarro..he's a Yankee prospect, after all. I just don't think that the scouts and analysts have adjusted to his significant improvement at age 19. Reading between the lines, I think that some analysts suppose that he won't get an opportunity until 2006 or 2007 because of Posada, and so have downgraded him for this reason.
I know that I'm in a minority of one, but I'd prefer having Navarro than Mauer. I think that Mauer's going to have difficulty hitting lefties in the majors and will see more than he's used to, and more importantly, I think that Mauer will be more susceptible to injury than Navarro because of his build. Neither would be in my top 5 though.
The Dodgers have done studies similar to the one Baseball America did last spring, which showed that high school picks yield a higher percentage of above-average big league regulars and stars than college choices.
Can anyone find this link? (might be for subscribers only)
Can anyone find this link? (might be for subscribers only)
http://economics.about.com
On the other hand, Rany Jazayerali at BP said that he thought that the #40 ranking for Navarro might be low. COMN.
Heck, Rany thought #30 would be low for Navarro. Prospectus rated Dioner at #30, and the scouts have him at #40.
Cheers,
Mike
On the other hand, Rany Jazayerali at BP said that he thought that the #40 ranking for Navarro might be low. COMN.
Heck, Rany thought #30 would be low for Navarro. Prospectus rated Dioner at #30, and the scouts have him at #40.
Cheers,
Mike
I'm not sure how you can rank Vito above Jason Arnold. Okay, Arnold struggled (though not horribly) at AAA... but he'd dominated at every other level. I think that's worth more, both in present and future performance, than a first baseman who was a bit too old for short-season ball. (and say that as a fan of the Big V) You could say the same thing about Vermilyea, for that matter; yay for dominating in Dunedin, but Arnold's done almost the same thing at AA.
Arnold or Vermilyea. Hmm..Do you like the older pitcher who's known success at double A and failure at triple A or the much younger pitcher who's known great success at short season A and high A, albeit briefly? Personally, I'd take the younger guy, but with pitchers, you just never know.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm a big fan of Vermilyea. But realistically, he pitched about a half season at Low-A and A ball, in relief. Arnold, while slightly older, has started, pitched more innings and nearly as well at Low-A, A-Ball and AA.
If anything, Arnold might serve as a good lesson when looking at Vermilyea: Blowing away hitters in the Florida State League is one thing, but things get a lot tougher as you move up.
It wouldn't surprise me if Vermilyea has blown past Arnold by the end of next year. But I don't think he's quite there yet.
If anything, Arnold might serve as a good lesson when looking at Vermilyea: Blowing away hitters in the Florida State League is one thing, but things get a lot tougher as you move up.
It wouldn't surprise me if Vermilyea has blown past Arnold by the end of next year. But I don't think he's quite there yet.