outside of Shark and Vitters that deserve the top 2 slots, in all honesty. Much as I like Jay Jackson, and much as I like Law, when I did that top 50, I couldn’t justify anyone else besides Vitters/Shark because you have to give some credit for readiness. I don’t think Shark is the TOR guy that some Cubs fans think he is. At best, I see him as a 2, perhaps a 2/3 type, but combine his upside and his “readiness”, he deserves it in our system to be number 2.

he showed improvement with that changeup, enough that I can’t imagine many lists where he isn’t in the top 30 area. Granted, it was improvement in Daytona, so let’s see if it holds, but that was one of the nice things this year – Maestri’s development from definite pen arm to borderline shot for the rotation depending on how things go.

I’ve seen your comments in the past and I can understand your concern to some degree. This isnt a situation like football or basketball where you can change the shape or your organization in just one or two years! Most drafts take 5 to 7 seven years to evolve on the Major League side. In 2006 we lost our 2nd to 4th round picks and 2007 we lost our 2nd round and to go with the fact that Keith Law said that our 2005 draft might not produce even one big leaguer either front liner or “cup of coffee” player has left this organization very thin especially on the higher minor league level side. The lower part of minor leagues are doing fine, I would venture to say we would be in the top 10, but the effects of this wont be seen for quite sometime. So even if your scale is 3 years, its not nearly enough to grade at this point. Patience should used at this time.

They werent listed at time of release. Under the parameters set I dont Olson can be considered and would think that all three of Stevens, Gaub and Olson would be ranked in the Top 30 and Willamson would probably be an honorable mention along Buchter another Lp we aquired in a minor league deal for Avery in the Nationals minor league deal.

Stevens would make the top 30. He’s probably about level with Hart. Gaub was on BA’s Indians top 30 last year, so there’s a good chance he’d be on ours. Olson isn’t a prospect anymore, and Hank Williamson wouldn’t be a top 30 as raw arms that pump a decent low-mid 90’s fastball with a decent breaking ball isn’t all that unique. Archer has upside (decent fast/curve right now), but a lot of work there, particularly mechanically.

I did put Stevens/Gaub/Archer in my top 50 list I posted. I also have contemplated Hank Williamson the last few days and based on the available knowledge, I’d guess I’d drop him in the 76-100 range.

Atkins doesn’t have much upside. Decent 3 pitch arsenal, potential end of the rotation profile. His “value” comes in readiness, but even then, readiness is only an assumption based on standing in many respects.