You may note that every time we remove the winner of the previous poll from the list of candidates, we add a new name.

Candidates?

Candidates for the top 10 would have to be Rzepcynski, Mark and Ginley, Kyle.  Fodder for the late rounds of the poll could include Eric Fowler, Trystan Magnussen, Brian Jeroloman and Ryan Patterson.

I was very encouraged to hear from BA that Ginley had added an effective cutter to his power sinker.  If he can further develop his change and curve, he might be quite promising.

I chose Purcey here.  It was between Purcey and Romero for me.  Both still have great stuff, with Purcey's fastball command being better and Romero's secondary pitches being the best in the system.  Purcey is a year advanced on Romero, a little closer to making the bigs as a starter, and more projectable as a reliever due to better fastball command.  So I went with Purcey.

Wow Justin Jackson debuts on the list and is putting together a nice showing.

It was also between Purcey and Romero for me, I went with Romero because I believe that if both of these guys ever put it all together, Romero would be the better pro.

Sorry Mudie.  I meant no slight at Magnuson by including him as poll fodder, I just felt he'd fall outside the top 10 but put up a good showing if on the ballot.

   If this latest poll has any validity, it means that none of Toronto's top 8 prospects are at the AAA level or higher (based on their level last season).     This, by itself, suggests something faulty in the Jays drafting record over the past few years.   If the Jays had drafted better, Syracuse should be chock-a-block with top prospects by now.

    Personally, I voted for Diaz, but it seems that a lot of other people don't have confidence in his ability to hit at the major-league level.    I can see a case for Purcey to be ahead of him, based on potential, but I still have faith that Diaz will be in the majors within a year.

China fan, let me assure you -- there is nothing remotely valid about these polls, from a reality-check statistical standpoint. They are simply opinion polls, starting with the guy who selects the candidates (me) and extending to include everyone who votes.

That said, though ... many people believe AAA is no longer the place for prospects, but rather a holding pen for emergency replacements, with most uber-prospects jumping from AA to the majors in many cases. That's why most MLB teams prefer their AAA city be nearby (Toledo is 45 minutes from Detroit, for instance; if Syracuse flips to the Mets, that's an easy two-hour drive) ...

If this latest poll has any validity, it means that none of Toronto's top 8 prospects are at the AAA level or higher (based on their level last season).     This, by itself, suggests something faulty in the Jays drafting record over the past few years.   If the Jays had drafted better, Syracuse should be chock-a-block with top prospects by now.

I don't think that the data say that.  First, the surveys are discussing relative, not absolute talent (i.e. Snider being a top prospect in A instead of AAA doesn't mean that AAA had talent, just that A had good talent).  Secondly, some players that will likely be in AAA (Litsch, League, and Lind) are top "prospects" in the Jays organization, but aren't eligible for such lists.  (In other words, the Jays look at them as "prospects" - young players who are likely to improve and help the major league club much more than they do now - but they're not eligible for this list).

I'm not saying that Syracuse is abundant with talent, just that I don't think your conclusion is supported by the facts you provided.

I have a related question ... I know there is a need for any definition, but why are prospect lists always defined according to the ROY requirements?  I think choosing players under a certain age (say, 26) who are not likely to be on a major league roster and all people who are eligible for ROY would be a more appropriate definition (for the Jays, this would add Litsch, League, and Lind). The purpose of prospects is not to win ROY, but to help a team in the future.  I know that this survey follows the same definitions that are used essentially everywhere, so I'm not complaining, but still saying ROY definitions give an inaccurate view of organizations. 
Look at a guy like Lind who is unlikely to appear on any prospect lists or on the open day major league roster.  Essentially, when evaluating the Blue Jays, most people analyzing the Jays will be saying that Lind has no impact on the organization's status.  ROY is probably just being used for simplicity sake, but considering all the rigor a lot of people put into their analysis of organizations, it seems weird to use such a simple and inaccurate definition for something so key.