Future Forty Updated

Dave · November 22, 2004 at 12:26 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Prospect junkies rejoice; a new Future Forty is here. This is the first update since the end of the regular season. I will likely do one more update during the offseason as we head towards spring training. If you’ve got prospect related questions, this would be a great thread for those dicussions.

A few notes from the update:

I’m still pretty down on the farm system. We love King Felix, obviously, but there’s still a significant chance that he’ll suffer a major injury. Reed and Choo are solid prospects with limited potential; neither is a future all-star, to me. After those three, its a collection of guys with injury problems, gaping flaws in their games, or a lack of experience. The top tier of prospects aren’t very good. The strength of the system is the depth in the mid-level talent, as even the guys in the 20-35 range have potential as big league players. Unfortunately, roster limitations are going to make it likely that even if that potential is fulfilled, it will probably be with another organization.

I’m glad I don’t have to figure out who is going to play where in the infield at Wisconsin and Inland Empire next year. Finding playing time for Cabrera, Navarro, Jones, Chen, Tuiasasopo and Castro, all of whom believe they are shortstops or second baseman, is going to be a challenge. They also get to deal with the walking stiff that is Michael Garciaparra in that mix as well. Good luck.

If I had to peg three guys from the farm system as possible Rule 5 picks, I’d probably go with Rich Dorman, Cesar Jimenez, and Brett Evert. Ryan Rowland-Smith is a longshot possibility.

The M’s are going to have to do some more juggling as the offseason progresses. They’d like to bring five or six players into the organization and have only one free spot on the 40-man roster. I’m expecting Aaron Looper to get DFA’d and likely slip through waivers. The other choices will be interesting. Leone, Bloomquist, Dobbs, Rett Johnson, Taylor, Atchison, and Thornton are all vulnerable, but all have fans in parts of the organization. Due to the roster congestion, I think we’ll see several more minor trades made in an effort to clear spots on the 40-man roster.


84 Responses to “Future Forty Updated”

  1. Jerry on November 22nd, 2004 7:17 pm


    That was a pretty lame comment you made: “Jerry, I hope eventually you will come to realize that real baseball does not work like a video game. No one is going to give up something of value for four pieces of crap.”

    I would think that you would be a little more understanding of other peoples ideas on your website. Especially since this is exactly what you yourself have proposed on this website very recently.

    This is what I suggested: “Regarding the amount of ‘decent’ prospects who can play at the ML level but are not high ceiling guys, wouldn’t it be best to try to swing a many-for-one trade?….I think that guys like Reed and Choo, although good players, are not really guys that are going to turn around this team. If the M’s could include one of these guys (who both have value) with a reliever or two and a few lower level prospects, it would kill two birds: bringing the M’s a player they can use right away and get them some space on the 40-man roster.”

    This is the same thing that you were proposing in your offseason plan you posted earlier this month:

    “Ryan Franklin, Clint Nageotte, Shin-Soo Choo, and Julio Mateo to Cincinatti for Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez.”

    You are trading Choo and Nageotte (who both have value but are not elite prospects) packaged with an overpaid starter and a mediocre reliever for someone who can help the team. That is EXACTLY the type of move that I was talking about. You move four players off the roster and bring in one mediocre prospect and one guy who could really help the team in 2005.

    For some reason, you seem to think that I am suggesting that we trade Thornton and Bloomquist for Hank Blalock. That was not my point at all. But thanks for being condescending anyhow.

  2. Joe on November 22nd, 2004 7:17 pm

    Anyone who wants to chat with Adam Jones, he’ll be chatting with fans tonight at InsidethePark.com starting around 8:50 PST (west coast time).

    Here’s the link: http://pub45.bravenet.com/chat/show.php/3821351461

    See ya in there.

  3. Ace-of-Spades on November 22nd, 2004 7:23 pm

    Snelling should be fine by Spring Training and will likely get a call up later in the season, assuming he puts up good numbers in AAA.

  4. Markro on November 22nd, 2004 7:25 pm

    I had the displeasure of watching Morse play an AFL game this fall. He has little range, a weak arm and he appeared disinterested in the game. He could not even tag out a runner in a run down play as the base runner easily slid under his tag. His bat speed looked mediocre. I would be shocked if he ever becomes a major league starter.

  5. eponymous coward on November 22nd, 2004 7:30 pm

    Bloomquist has grit, much like Mo Vaughn (who has it in his knee).

  6. Dave on November 22nd, 2004 8:13 pm


    You can be offended if you’d like. You’ve spent the last two months proposing a series of trades and spreading rumors that have no basis in reality. You can take it as condescending, or you can take it for what its worth. I really do hope that someday you realize that MLB is not run like a video game.

  7. Pete on November 22nd, 2004 8:26 pm

    Thank you Dave.

  8. David J Corcoran on November 22nd, 2004 8:38 pm

    Why can’t MLB be run like a video game? I was able to trade Willie Bloomquist and Ryan Balfe (have a patch that adds all minor leaguers) for Hank Blalock….

  9. Jerry on November 22nd, 2004 9:32 pm


    Did you even read my comments? I didn’t suggest any ‘video game’ trade on this blog. In fact, I didn’t mention any specific trade at all.

    In the past, every single time I have suggested some ‘rumor’, they have been based on some published comment by a sports writer somewhere (like espn.com, Sports Weekly, The Sporting News, or online editions of newspapers). I haven’t been spreading rumors any more than the sources I have read them in, and have always framed these comments as ‘so-and-so is said to be available’, ‘wouldn’t it be cool if..’ or ‘if I was GM…’. Ironically, this is exactly what you have done in your post earlier this month. There is nothing wrong with that. I just resent the fact that you jump all over me for simply voicing ideas and opinions. They are just suggestions or ideas, and I have never insinuated that they were in the works, likely, or even probable. I have never said that any of these trades had any basis in reality, just like your Kearns trade has no basis in reality. This is all really beside the point, because I didn’t suggest any specific trades or moves at all in this thread.

    In this thread, I didn’t even name any players names (except for guys on the M’s that I thought could be used as trade bait, like Choo, Reed, and some of our young relievers). I simply said what I thought would be a good way to improve the team and to get around their problems opening spots on the 40-man roster: trading multiple players and/or prospects for fewer (preferably better) players. This is also something that you have suggested.

    You are calling me out for something that A) I didn’t say, and B) you have done as well. If you don’t like people posting trade ideas, you shouldn’t do them yourself. At the very least, you should wait until I do post a trade idea before criticizing me for doing so. If you don’t like people to post comments on your website, why operate a blog?

  10. Brent Overman on November 22nd, 2004 9:35 pm

    I would love to see the Franklin, Mateo, Shoo, and Nageotte for Kearns go down. I don’t think we’ve seen 1/2 of what Kearns could be, while we’d be sending exactly what Cincy could use. They’ll go for it with Don Gullett and his reclamation project reputation to turn Franklin and Nageotte into serviceable players, while overvaluing Mateo and Choo. This would be a no-brainer that another team would think they’re striking gold with.

    Now, if they can just move Winn…

  11. DMZ on November 22nd, 2004 9:57 pm

    If you don’t like people to post comments on your website, why operate a blog?

    We didn’t have comments for a long time, you know.

    Seriously though, come on now. Let’s all be cool.

  12. Jerry on November 22nd, 2004 10:11 pm

    Agreed DMZ,

    I like the Kearns deal as well. However, I wonder how much interest they would have in Choo given their glut of OFers. Too bad we don’t have a decent, inexpensive third baseman to send them. I don’t think that they would be too excited about Dobbs or Leone.

    Kearns would be great. He could end up being a steal.

  13. eponymous coward on November 22nd, 2004 10:44 pm

    We didn’t have comments for a long time, you know.

    And now you see why some blogs don’t- the signal to noise ratio is almost certainly inversely related to the popularity of the blog.

  14. J on November 22nd, 2004 10:51 pm

    semi-OT, but thanks for coming to the Adam Jones chat, DC, even if you didn’t ask any questions 😉

  15. Jerry on November 22nd, 2004 11:43 pm

    E. Coward is correct. Case in point: the Seattle PI blog. It is still nice to check out, but is has become overun with teen angst and really sad people flirting with each other online.

  16. Moses on November 23rd, 2004 12:17 am

    Interesting, Jerry, I was just about to mention the PI blog – I agree it is not worth reading.
    I enjoy reading about subjects here at USS Mariner. Dave and DMZ do a fine job.
    Two comments and a question:
    First, I noticed Nageotte’s major hang-up two years ago – he doesn’t have a third pitch. He may make a fine reliever in a couple years. Tuck him down at Tacoma and turn him into a reliever. Same goes for Soriano. Nothing wrong with having good, cheap bullpen studs. They don’t grow on trees.
    Second, I think the main problem with these blogs is we are all rediculous Mariners fanatics, leaving some with an inability to be rational. The realities are, the Mariners are not going to contend next year, even if we sign 25 million in players this winter (which won’t happen anyway). We should be trying to figure out who is that one great fit – for 2006 – and sign him this year. Then just play out the season without spending on marginal talent.
    So, the question is…
    Who is that perfect fit?

    Carlos Beltran!

    Okay, we can’t afford him – and I really think Reed can be a good table-setter.
    What do we really REALLY need?
    Look, we don’t have any sure-thing 3B prospects. Leone, as Dave mentioned, could be a good bench guy. Thats all.
    So, who is available at 3B? (Okay, I’ve asked more than one question)
    Beltre, Glaus, and Koskie.
    Dave has already pointed out the pitfalls of Koskie, and I’ll add he will be OLD in 2006.
    So, Beltre or Glaus?
    Most would argue Beltre – but I prefer Glaus.
    We know he can hit for power, which we need (Glaus has had several productive seasons, Beltre has had one).
    We know he can hit in the AL (We don’t know if Beltre can).
    We can afford him at 10 mil per year, and still be able to add more players for 2006 (this would not be the case with a huge Beltre contract).
    He will likely sign for 3 or 4 years (Beltre will get 7 or 8).
    He would love to beat the Angels 20 games each year.
    He likes the west coast.
    His agent isn’t Boras.

  17. DMZ on November 23rd, 2004 12:27 am

    Tuck him down at Tacoma and turn him into a reliever. Same goes for Soriano. Nothing wrong with having good, cheap bullpen studs. They don’t grow on trees.

    Except that sort of, yeah, they do. See Putz, Atchison, others. Rafael Soriano can be a quality starter, throw 200 good innings. Why limit him to 50, 70, maybe 90 as a reliever unless the impact in the quality of his innings makes him so much better there the loss in playing time is worth it?

    Also, I’d argue Clint’s got problems beyond the third pich.

    And Glaus is a big injury risk.

  18. Moses on November 23rd, 2004 12:39 am

    Hmmm, okay. I can agree to that. Except for the fact that Soriano also doesn’t have a third pitch.
    So, DMZ, do you think there are any FA studs worth the dough this year? Would it be better to stay away all together? I think there will be a fan revolt.

    (By the way, if you think the Mariners are actually serious about Beltran or Beltre, I’d like to see some rationale.)

    Hey, I read as much Down on the Farm, John Sickels, as I can. Do you generally agree with his assessments?

  19. Moses on November 23rd, 2004 12:44 am

    Forgot to mention – I wouldn’t consider either Putz or Atchison as studs. I should have been more specific. Soriano has the potential to be a VERY good closer. And good closers certainly don’t grow on trees.

  20. Paul Covert on November 23rd, 2004 1:14 am


    You’ve come out a few times now in favor of the view that two-pitch guys like Soriano and Nageotte should still be treated as rotation candidates, at least until they prove that they can’t succeed as starters. Would it be possible for you to write up an explanation of your view sometime?

    I’m certainly not one for blindly accepting conventional wisdom; but on this point, the conventional wisdom (that a starter needs three good pitches) does seem intuitively sensible: Setting up hitters and mixing up pitch sequences is generally agreed to be an important part of pitching, and it’s easier to do that with a deeper repertoire. Furthermore, there also seems to be (at least anecdotally) a trend for two-pitch guys to succeed in the pen after struggling in the rotation (Arthur Rhodes comes to mind).

    To argue against this, it would seem necessary to provide a few counter-examples, guys who have succeeded as starters with just a fastball and a slider. Maybe there have been some, but I can’t think of any at the moment.

    Or am I misunderstanding your argument at some point?

  21. Ace-of-Spades on November 23rd, 2004 1:33 am

    Randy Johnson comes to mind. Johnson pretty much sticks to the fastball and slider. He can use other pitches, but it’s not all that common. Just as Soriano knows how to throw a change but rarely does so because he can’t throw it consistently for a strike yet. Also, you’ve got variations of pitches, like the four seamer and two seamer. Johan Santana has two different changes (I think he has a circle change and a straight change, though I’m not sure). What really matters is if you can throw a pitch for a strike.

  22. Conor Glassey on November 23rd, 2004 2:20 am

    Moses – Johan Santana could also be a “VERY good closer” – but just because he can, doesn’t mean he should. The same is true with Rafael Soriano. Until proven otherwise, Soriano’s talent is wasted in the bullpen and, when he’s healthy, I hope that he gets another shot in the rotation.

  23. Graham on November 23rd, 2004 2:40 am

    I know this is a little bit off topic, guys, but if you’re in need of a laugh, check out the new Mariner’s mailbag. I think someone suggesting bringing Ben Davis back to DH…

  24. Bela Txadux on November 23rd, 2004 3:10 am

    Let’s see now, re: 40 spaces . . . The Ms need two bats and a starter, plus a backup-catcher that is Dan Wilson or someone else. They have 39 guys on now, so that’s three places to pry open. The free agent signs are going to stretch out over time, so all three places needn’t be opened tomorrow.

    Bloomquist is an obvious non-tender. Now, he’s been this blog’s favorite whipping boy since forever, and in all that chat I’ve never heard a single statement regarding what Willie’s job has _actually_ been these last two years. Bloomie has been on the roster to shame loafing stars by ‘hustling’ whenever he was put into a game. Seriously. This is, in fact, an established major league role, and has been throughout major league history, and on some teams the psychology of it actually works, i.e. “I’M NOT going to get shown up by that no-talent skipper-s boy, LET’S _GO_!” Seriously. But on a 99 game loser, shaming loafers doesn’t get you much better, and Willie really can’t do anything else. Continuing to carry a pscyh specialist at this point is a luxury like carrying a pinch runner or third catcher. Willie’s spot is needed for someone who can actually make a _material_ contribution, so it’s time for him to be employed as an ‘immaterial player’ for another team. Atlanta comes to mind, and Cox has always had his thing for light-hitting, all-hustle middle infielders. Non-tender.

    Luis Ugueto is the obvious minor league trade. The Ms have no interest in using him at the major league level, so much is obvious, but he still has some value as organization fill and emergency infield help for someone. A minor league deal for stiff-to-be-named will do nicely.

    The third player is Ryan Franklin. Franklin isn’t as bad as his ’04 but obviously not as good as his ’03, especially with a diminished defence behind him. His best attributes are that he eats innings pretty well, and he’s never been hurt. He’s a bit spendy for a fifth starter for the teams bad enough to see him as attractive in that role, so he will have to be packaged. Either way, he won’t be moved until after Clement signs, since Frankie is the organizations fall-back (gulp!) if they don’t pick up a desireable rotation arm. But after the sign, I would expect a pre-arranged deal almost immediately moving Ryan down the road; essentially his spot on the 40 goes to the incoming pitcher. That’s it.

    Bigger trades will shuffle the roster, but presumably as many places on the 40 would empty as there are incomers to fill them. If not, the obvious man to DFA is . . . Dobbs. Seriously, who’s going to claim him? The problem for the FO, of course, is that If they recycle him in-house they wouldn’t be able to bring him back up without clearing a spot on the 40 again, plus there are other procedural arcana I rather believe. But as far as, Who’s Hindmost on the List, it’s Dobbs tailender far more so than Taylor to me. Aaron may not be entirely back, but I firmly believe that there are organizations out there who would claim him on waivers if he’s hung out to dry, just to take a gamble. If he’s not back arm-wise by the middle of ’05, his value is radically different than previously, but I think it would be folly to lose him for nothing at this point. But Dobbs . . . even supposing that he can play a bit—which as Dave’s current whipping boy is not a contestable subject I know—Greg is nonetheless: A) behind the offseason sign to play 3B, a) behind Leone, and b) not young. He’s door[way] #3, to me.

  25. Conor Glassey on November 23rd, 2004 3:25 am

    Graham – that’s great. Those Mailbags are always good for a laugh. Other funny bits from the newest one include Street calling Delgado a switch hitter and a question from someone named Gorky…

  26. Bela Txadux on November 23rd, 2004 3:36 am

    BTW Dave-blog maven,

    Thanks for the Future Forty. With the exception of your statement #34, for which you have, be it said good reasons and ample justification, the whole thing looks pretty reasonable, etc., etc.

    *Sigh* When your only power hitter in the entire _organization_ has Wladamir’s skillset, it does make the die hard fan swallow hard and order another beer. That said, I strongly suspect that they will harvest several significant major league pitchers out of this group beyond Felix el Rey, and of Snelling, Reed, and Choo one of them is capable of being a serious asset; not an All-Star, but a serious asset. Supposing that occurs, it’s _not_ that bad a group. Of course if none of this happens, this lot will look like the proverbial air pocket in the aorta, but I think we’ll get more positives out of this collective than the worse case.

    What this Future Forty group looks like is a collection to fill out a major league roster, plus enough usefuls to firm up at least one significant trade. Which, if the Ms go about signing the two cornerstone players this offseason which they need to acquire, is about as much as is needed from the group, be it said. If they were stronger, it would all look better, sure, and there is very little back-up in this group in the case of major injury to the big league club. It’s not a washout, though.

    What has bothered me most about the Ms minor league system aside from the Mattox-induced power-failure is this: the acquision strategy of the Ms was going to bloat the minor league roster with pitchers and middle-infielders, which implies that the team must make sensible trades over time to send some guys out and bring others in to correct the imbalances. Except said trades have never materialized. In big part, this is due to injuries/ineffectiveness on the part of some of the pitchers which took away the depth necessary. Still, I’ve never gotten the sense from the Ms FO _at any time including now_ that they seem to grasp the challenges of their self-imposed talent imbalances, or that they seem in any way disposed to actively correct them as opposed to ‘letting the players sort themselves out.’ The sheer passiviity of the Ms with regard to minor league talent in recent years is very disheartening. I know, I know, Pat Gillick builds at the major league level; he wasn’t very interested in the rookies because that’s not where he expects to find any wins. But he’s gone, and I still have the sense of a great gloom-gray cloud of passivity in the organization. It’s like they simply don’t EXPECT anyone to come out of the minors and be a major player for them. To my mind, the Ms shoudl _expect_ a player from this group, probably a pitcher other than Atchison (who should have a slot or be included in a trade package) to force his way onto the big league club in the Spring. Their shoudl be the attitude that guys will push their timetable and achieve, but the Ms don’t seem to cultivate that, ever. Of all the idiocies of last offseason, the thing which burned me most is how they didn’t promote a single guy from their own organization last spring. They carried Jarvis from San Diego like total chumps, signed Mike Myers because ‘they were going for it in September,’ and signed Ron Villone; not a single organization guy got the shadow of a chance.

    Until this organization shakes that attitude, that someday maybe, they’ll get around to promoting one of their own guys if they really have to, this organization just isn’t going to approach using their talent wisely. Because for the most part unless forced they don’t use their own talent at all at the ML level.

  27. Dave on November 23rd, 2004 9:14 am

    Two pitch starters who have been successful for extended periods of time:

    Randy Johnson (fastball, slider)
    Kerry Wood (fastball, curve)
    Matt Clement (fastball, slider)
    Kelvim Escobar (fastball, split-finger)
    Mike Hampton (sinker, slider)
    Jamie Moyer (slow change, even slower change)

    Three pitches isn’t a requirement for success in the rotation. It certainly helps, and I’d like Soriano more if he had a changeup, but pigeonholing every two-pitch guy as a reliever is a waste of resources.

  28. msb on November 23rd, 2004 2:59 pm

    “Two pitch starters who have been successful for extended periods of time: Jamie Moyer (slow change, even slower change)”–Comment by Dave — 11/23/2004

    wandering off-topic for a minute, I was pleasantly surprised to see the entry for Moyer in “The Neyer/James guide to pitchers : an historical compendium of pitching, pitchers, and pitches”….. both for the content, and that it was there in the first place.

  29. basebliman on November 23rd, 2004 8:07 pm

    Any reason why Jose Lopez isn’t on the list? Is it because it’s a foregone conclusion that he’s the opening day shortstop in 2005? Or do you think that little of him?

  30. Dave on November 23rd, 2004 8:34 pm

    Jose Lopez has too many at-bats to qualify for the classification of “prospect”. The same limitations were applied to Bobby Madritsch, George Sherrill, and Bucky Jacobsen.

    Lopez would probably be #2 or #3 on the list if he was still eligible. And making him the opening day SS in 2005 is still a terrible idea.

  31. Paul Covert on November 24th, 2004 1:07 am

    Dave– thanks for the list of two-pitch starters (for some reason I thought RJ had a third– perhaps I was wrong). I’ll slightly revise my view, then, to the effect that keeping such a guy as a starter can be worth considering. (I still won’t be rushing to judgment if they keep Soriano in the pen, though; outsiders like me have to pick our rush-to-judgment issues carefully.)

    Different topic, related to your #80: I noticed in BA’s League Top 20’s that Reed, Lopez, and Choo all ranked #4 or #5 at the AA or AAA level (Reed was #5 in the IL, #6 behind Lopez in the PCL). Do you have any guesses as to where Reed and Choo will slot in BA’s overall rankings? Or where you would personally put them? (I’m guessing that they’d both be around #30 or so, maybe #40, and that Lopez would be at about the same level if he were eligible. Felix will be in their top 5, of course.)

    (The above #30-40 comment comes with the caveat, of course, that ranking in the top 50 is no guarantee of an all-star career. At this point, I’d project those guys to “a few years as a decent starter,” maybe on about the level of Raul Ibanez or so. Not worthless by any means, but I agree about not pinning major franchise hopes on them.)

  32. John on November 24th, 2004 7:05 am

    To underscore Dave’s pessimism about our farm system, in (BA’s) Kevin Goldstein’s PROSPECT REPORT, 37 AFL position players and 17 pitchers (starters and relievers) are named (by managers and coaches) as bona fide prospects.
    Not one is a Mariner:

    AFL All-Prospect Team (as voted on by managers and coaches)

    Catcher: Chris Shelton (Tigers) and Ryan Garko (Indians) tied.
    Other consideration: Russ Martin (Dodgers)

    First baseman: Ryan Howard (Phillies); Brian Dopirak (Cubs),
    Chris Shelton (Tigers), James Loney (Dodgers) tied.
    Other consideration: Vito Chiaravalloti (Blue Jays) and Mitch Jones (Yankees) tied.

    Second baseman: Rickie Weeks (Brewers), Freddy Sanchez (Pirates).
    Other consideration: Aaron Herr (Braves).

    Third baseman: Mark Teahen (Royals), John Hattig (Blue Jays).
    Other consideration: Kevin Kouzmanoff (Indians) and Josh Barfield (Padres) tied.

    Shortstop: Omar Quintanilla (Athletics), Aaron Hill (Blue Jays).
    Other consideration: Josh Bartlett (Twins).

    Utility: Aaron Hill (Blue Jays), Casey Smith (Angels),
    Ian Kinsler (Rangers), Chris Shelton (Tigers) and Corey Myers (Diamondbacks) tied.

    Left fielder: Conor Jackson (Diamondbacks), Kevin Thompson (Yankees).
    Other consideration: Jason Botts (Rangers) and Kevin West (Twins).

    Center fielder: Joey Gathright (Devil Rays); Curtis Granderson (Tigers)
    and Wayne Lydon (Mets) tied.
    Other consderation: Reid Gorecki (Cardinals).

    Right fielder: Jeremy Hermida (Marlins); Jason Repko (Dodgers), Ben Johnson (Padres)
    and Conor Jackson (Diamondbacks) tied.
    Other consideration: Jeff Francouer (Braves).

    Right-handed starting pitcher: J.D. Durbin (Twins), Dennis Sarfate (Brewers).
    Other consideration: Francisco Rosario (Blue Jays), Scott Baker (Twins), Steve Obenchain (Athletics)
    and Keith Bucktrot (Phillies) tied.

    Left-handed starting pitcher: Jeff Housman (Brewers), Sean Marshall (Cubs).
    Other Consideration: Mike Stadolka (Royals).

    Right-handed reliever: Huston Street (Athletics), Jesse Crain (Twins).
    Other consideration: Todd Coffey (Reds), Wes Wilkerson (Royals) and Jeff Miller (Pirates) tied.

    Left-handed reliever: Billy Keppinger (Royals), Russ Rohlicek (Cubs).
    Other consideration: Mike Johnston (Pirates).

    Only three other AL teams–none from the WEST, unfortunately–were so shut out

  33. Dave on November 24th, 2004 8:03 am

    I’ll be pretty surprised if Felix isn’t #1 on BA’s Top 100 next spring.

    I think you’ve got it about right. Choo and Reed will fall in the 20-40 range. That’s probably about where I would put them as well. Felix, Reed, and Choo will likely be the only three Mariners in the Top 100.

  34. John on November 26th, 2004 11:17 am

    Re: “I’m still pretty down on the farm system.”
    In a recent column (11/24), Peter Gammons ranks it at least 26th. *

    “…the best and worst farm systems [snip]: Best: Minnesota, Oakland, Anaheim and Atlanta. Worst: Philadelphia, Kansas City, the Yankees and St. Louis…

    I am wondering where you rank it. (Rough estimate O.K., like average, top third, etc.)