A Top Prospect List to Laugh At

by gondeee on Dec 19, 2007 8:02 AM EST in Braves Minor League News

We've had the Sickels list, the Baseball America list, and our intrepid list. This prospect list comes to us from Top Prospect Alert:

Brandon Jones
Jordan Schafer
Jair Jurrjens
Jason Heyward
Gorkys Hernandez
Tommy Hanson
Brent Lillibridge
Diory Hernandez
Cole Rohrbough
Jeff Locke

Yep, that's not a misprint, that's Diory Hernandez sitting at number 8. I'm not really sure what impresses them about Diory. Perhaps they think he's a kin to Gorky's, but that's not the case. Did they even notice that he doesn't have a single extra base hit this winter (30-for-128: all singles). In our top-25, he was ranked by only one person, collectively coming in at number 36.

As was the case last year with their top-25, they don't provide any explanation for why they ranked each player where they did. The appearance of Diory is also not surprising as they listed both Beau Jones and Tim Gustafson (and Anthony Lerew) on last year's list.

The rest of the players on this list are expected to be there, but again, no explanation for why they are ranked where they are, and that's half the fun of most of these lists - reading why players are ranked above or below others.

Tweet Comment 35 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Bizarre Mix.

At first I thought they valued closeness to the majors (and performance at those higher levels) over projectability. Then I believed they relied almost exclusively on second hand accounts of ceilings for the more well known prospects and stats. But then I realized that their top ten had nine of the Baseball America's list, only slightly jumbled up. The one player missing (Julio Teheran) has no pro stats to be found on the Internet and little has actually been said about him in the media. The simply replaced him with a kid doing well enough in the high minors with no regard for his true value. In other words, I've come to the sad conclussion that this published prospects list must be a cheap knock-off of BA's decent work and it's embarassing. What a joke!

Come check out my blog 52 Card Pick-up and let me know what you think!

by ejruiz on Dec 19, 2007 10:43 AM EST reply actions

Strange list....

No Gregor??? Good to see Cole Rohrbough, Jeff Locke on there but they should be higher. Where is Evarts? I don't see this list backed up by any logical stats.

by BC1898 on Dec 19, 2007 1:41 PM EST reply actions

When did Gregor Blanco become a top prospect?

But I do agree that it's a strange list. They seem to put a lot of weight on what a player has done the last month or two of the season/winter ball. Example: Tommy Hanson.

by kray1000 on Dec 19, 2007 7:30 PM EST reply actions

Tommy Hanson....

....was a solid guy all season in Rome - good enough to be Rome's pitcher of the year. I don't think he even played winter ball. Are you thinking of somebody else?

I myself am wondering how Cody Johnson isn't on the list....

by secondbass on Dec 19, 2007 8:46 PM EST up reply actions

You're right...

I was thinking about Charlie Morton. Sorry.

I still think that's a little high for him, though... maybe closer to #10 than #6.

by kray1000 on Dec 19, 2007 9:23 PM EST up reply actions

what does it matter?

What does it matter who's 6th or 10th in these lists? People put so much stock into the prospect lists that it makes me laugh. You honestly think there's some huge difference between 1-10? or 10-15? yeah there is, hype. weightless hype.
what matters is whos gonna be up there this year, and then this time next year who's gonna be up in 09. Heyward, gorkys hernandez, locke? are you kidding? Cody Johnson? the only projection that matters is who's gonna be there the fastest, and who's there already. I dont understand how you put guys who have been up in the big leagues behind rookie ball guys (i dont see them on this list) but i see it too much. How are hanson, locke, gorkys, etc in front of jo jo? Why dont these lists ever make sense? and why does everyone put so much stock in them? The only thing that's going on here is a bunch of stat checking, no ceiling assessment, no predictions, no nothing.. Also Morton's has some of "the best" stuff in the whole organization (top to bottom) but is now just recently starting to come into his own. Has anyone even mentioned him on a top 25 list? Maybe one person? These lists are the products of stat rats. really no rsearch done, n chances taken..Jake stevens was once on one of these top 10 lists, the kid retired at 21 because ho couldn't advance, Pope was #8 at the beginning of this year..sorry had to vent

by bravos408 on Dec 20, 2007 1:38 AM EST reply actions

plus

Shreiber, cuevas and morton were added to the 40 man..you think they did that for no reason. Pope, dan smith, diory, Holt, villa..did anyone mention cuevas morton or schreiber? top 25 even? c'mon. The braves added them onto the roster because they are going to make an impact on the big league team..its that simple..dont say they had to be protected from the rule 5. There are four protection rosters (A, AA, AAA, 40 man) all the above listed were protected on the AAA roster. And many of these names were "top 15" prospects on your lists. Where do they stack up against cuevas and schreiber now? If you said theyre of higher value than schreiber morton or cuevas you need some help. I thought thats what a prospect list was anyway..

by bravos408 on Dec 20, 2007 1:45 AM EST reply actions

Well!

Preach it, brother! You know, what's funny is I almost completely agree with you. I say 'almost' because I just can't go with the part about Morton having some of the best stuff and only now coming into his own....not saying you're wrong, but I watched Morton pitch all season in Rome in 2005. He was a very nice guy, but that's about all that stood out. Morton's curveball has always been highly rated (whatever theheck that means), but I don't recall him ever really being considered as having raw or great stuff. Now somebody who fits that description - based on what I saw for myself - is Jairo Cuevas. He was Jekyll and Hyde in Rome - he could dominate and amaze one night, then really stink it up the next. It looks like now maybe he's settling into a more consistent groove. But I digress.

What I agree with you about is just how funny these lists can be, and how protective we all seem to get about our lists and the people we think should be on them. And how we come up with our lists, for that matter. What I think would be awesome would be for gondee to save our lists from, say, this year, as well as all our posts and bickering back and forth as to why so and so should or shouldn't be on the list and all that nonsense. Then, maybe ten years later - long into the careers of Cole Rohrbough and company - and see who was right. The first guarantee you could make is that nobody will have been 100% accurate. Somebody's opinion will have been "more right" than everybody else's, and would be deserving of a big ol' prize. That prize sould be the right to say "I told you so!" in this here public forum.

The fact is, none of us are souts, none of really knows what we are talking about (in the sense that we can accurately make predictions based on stats, projections, crystal balls, or any other means), and if we do, we should run down to Turner Field and get a job. It's funny to see so much anger and defensiveness flare up about all this stuff! What's worse is getting drawn into it - I try not to, I do - but's it's just too tempting!

Sorry....with you on the rant.

by secondbass on Dec 20, 2007 5:22 AM EST up reply actions

And I'm not through!

The people who are wrong, by the way, should get something too, especially the ones who are the loudest about their lists. I don't know what they should get, but man do they need something!

by secondbass on Dec 20, 2007 5:26 AM EST up reply actions

I dig your style

i just really dig your style

by bravos408 on Dec 21, 2007 1:51 PM EST up reply actions

Haha

"Where do they stack up against cuevas and schreiber now? If you said theyre of higher value than schreiber morton or cuevas you need some help."

Is this even a serious post or is it satirizing something?

Prospect lists take a number of factors into consideration:

1. Age
How old is the player and how much more development time does he have before he hits his age 26-29 peak? Also, was he older than the other players who played at his level?

2. Tools
Does he hit for power? average? Does he run well? Does he have a good arm? Does he play good defense? For pitchers, do they throw hard? Does their fastball have good movement? How are their breaking balls and change-up? Their command?

3. Stats
What numbers did he put up and at what level? How do they look translated to big league numbers?

Schreiber was 25 this season and still pitching in the minors. Cuevas and Morton were 23 and at A-ball and AA-ball. It's no surprise that the only one considered a legitimate prospect by some (Morton) is the only one who's age looks good in context.

None of the pitchers have been tipped to have above average tools, except Morton's curveball.

Stats paint an even worse picture. To illustrate Cuevas's situation, look at this line:

3.55 ERA, 5.05 RA, 4.8 BB/9, 1.39 WHIP, 7.9 K/9, .225 BAA

The ERA looks good until you see the RA. The BAA looks nice too, until you see the BB/9. Nice K/9 rate, but dismal stats put up by a 23 year old at High-A, especially when taken with his 2006 stats at Low A-ball.

Morton's:
4.29 ERA, 4.63 RA, 4.18 BB/9, 1.47 WHIP, 7.6 K/9, .270 BAA

Nothing special at all.

AFL stats:
2.57 ERA, 3.00 RA, 3.43 BB/9, 1.10 WHIP. 8.6 K/9, .205 BAA

These are nice in a limited sample. Let's compare to his 2006 season at High A-ball:

5.40 ERA, 6.30 RA, 4.86 BB/9, 1.70 WHIP, 6.8 K/9, .291 BAA

Schreiber's stats are actually pretty decent, but his age and level makes it unlikely he'll get any better. That's why he's not considered a "prospect".

And as to why all three were protected. 1. They were the best of the bunch that had to be protected. 2. All three could become useful but unspectacular middle relievers.

by 17843 on Dec 20, 2007 2:03 PM EST up reply actions

Muahahah

I love it. Well hmm... Who out of these guys do you think is of more value to the braves or anyone else? Select from list.. Diory Hernandez, JC Holt, Van Pope, Dan Smith, Kelvin Villa. Who here? And why do you say Morton is the best prospect out of the three (schreiber, cuevas and morton)? All youre demonstrating is your ability to be a stat rat. If its not one thing its another. What does it matter how old someone is if they can help their big league club? I'll tell you why, because baseball america, and these other lists create the image of what a "prospect" is, and if they dont fit in to the little category they arent prospects to everyone else. Theyre tossed aside. And go under the radar, and then within one month people jump back on the bandwagon (now people are talking about morton again) when he was barely even mentioned in the top 30 even though he has one of the top 5 arms in the whole organization. It just goes to show whats actually going on here...why do you even bother to make your own lists? all it is, is you taking baseball americas list and putting your name at the top

by bravos408 on Dec 20, 2007 3:21 PM EST up reply actions

Actually

We here at Talking Chop made our lists before Baseball America or Sickels or anyone else came out with their's. We're not just copying. I actually think it speaks volumes for the prospect knowledge of the TC readers who participated that we were so close to BA's or JS's list.

by gondeee on Dec 20, 2007 3:46 PM EST up reply actions

Yep, and...

...it is fun to do, right or wrong. Actually, there is no right or wrong. A like-minded consensus is fun to come up with! I've said it before....the TC ranking period is something I always look forward to.

by secondbass on Dec 20, 2007 4:13 PM EST up reply actions

i agree

I'm sorry, I just haven't taken a deep enough breath to relax myself.

Though it is hard for me to think that the majority (not all) of the people who post here have much, if any first hand knowledge of the people they write about.. Which troubles me often, primarily because people write about what they've read. And what they read doesn't always come from the most knowledgeable sources. I'll use Morton as an example again. The kid can't put up numbers to save his life. But, he's got so much potential that it kills the braves (because he couldnt do much with it) But why now, after 6 years of playing, are people taking a look at him? Because of one blog and article by dave o'brien! now he's up on your rotation possibility list, people are talking like he has a shot at the club...why?? Because of what you read. The braves believed the whole time or would've been released.. He'd be on your top 30 now wouldn't he? I see the van popes (kid can play) and jc holt and dan smith putting up numbers. loadenthal included, and they're on the lists. I give up..

by bravos408 on Dec 20, 2007 4:40 PM EST up reply actions

i'm sorry

i agree, and i agree often with what i read from certain people who post. I agree..

by bravos408 on Dec 20, 2007 4:42 PM EST up reply actions

Uh no

And what's a stat rat? Someone who actually can analyze statistics and come to a conclusion? Unlike observing players, statistics can capture an entire picture of a player's preformance. I somehow doubt you've watched every appearance Cuevas, Schreiber, Morton, or anyone else has made in their pro career or even last year. What you've seen is snippets. That's why statistics (adjusted for difficulty) will always be the best way to evaluate players in the high minors. There's a place for observation, especially in the lower levels, but when statistics tell you one thing consistently over a few years, they don't lie.

As to your list of players and how valuable they'll be, I'll guess Holt has the best chance to contribute in the major leagues. Pope obviously has a decent chance if he can rebound from last season, but none of his previous three seasons were very impressive at all. The chances of any of them becoming even average major leaguers is extroadinarily low. Mostly because of their age.

As to why age matters, a player typically peaks around 26-29. If someone hasn't figured out how to pitch to hitters in A-ball by age 23, he's probably not going to figure it out at all.

And I'll invite you to go find my prospect list and compare it to Baseball America's. And then understand that Baseball America stays in business by being right more than they're wrong. Please make a list of players in the past five years who's gone unranked on a Baseball America prospect list the year before their major league debut. I'm sure it will be filled with role players and fringe big leaguers.

By the way, what's your definition of a prospect?

by 17843 on Dec 20, 2007 8:16 PM EST up reply actions

What do you mean

None of the pitchers have been tipped to have above average tools, except Morton's curveball

Really? what is a tool? you stated its how hard a kid throws, and his movement? ok..so what can you tell me about morton's tools? Cuevas's tools? Schreiber's tool's? if you admitted very little i would agree. Cuevas throws up to 96, schreiber 95. morton 98. what is big league average? 89-91..

what can you tell me about their off speed stuff? what pitches? other than morton's curve? I think you'd need to put your stat sheet down and actually see them pitch to answer that one. And you say a person reaches their physical peak at 26-29 (three years is a ton of time to a professional athlete so that would give cuevas and morton plenty of time to still develop, and schreiber to i guess..
Dont give me this stat wrap. Tell me brad nelson's stuff is half as good as morton's and i'll flip my lid. Tell me morton's stats are better than nelson's.. Then tell me who will be the better big league pitcher

by bravos408 on Dec 20, 2007 4:53 PM EST up reply actions

Haha

Nelson's 26. Morton is 24. Both have played at the same levels and predictably Nelson has posted better stats. I don't consider either prospects as Nelson is old in prospect terms and Morton's stats are poor.

by 17843 on Dec 20, 2007 8:20 PM EST up reply actions

you mean to tell me

My definition of a prospect is...
a player of great talent, who can be compared talent wise with the top in his organization. A player that has the potential to be a successful big leaguer. A player who is closest in that class to the big league level. A player who has the highest ceiling in that class. And who is of value to the organization both on and off the field....
And I'm glad for Cuevas, and Morton, that you're not the GM of the braves because according to you they have no tools (even though they really do).. And luckily for them, the people that really matter to their careers believe in them...

you're telling me that no one with poor minor league stats has succeeded in the big leagues? Pope is the best defensive third baseman the braves have and is probably one of the best in all of baseball (bold, yes..) And if they put brad nelson in the big leagues and he posted a 3.4 era will you say, oh well he's 26?
You're telling me scott thorman is an impact player? Josh burrus is an impact player? Bubba Nelson? Dan Meyer, Adam Stern, Luis Hernandez, Martin Prado, Luis Atilano..? all guys who were at one point top ten prospects. I saw your top 30 ranking. You have sung ki jung up who's 28 years old. You have phillip britton on there (seriously?). You have chase fontain ahead of ascanio...And dan smith in your top ten (didnt see that one coming). And as a matter of fact, I've seen these guys play plenty enough to make a very accurate assessment of their abilities to play baseball. Cuevas is a top 20 prospect in the organization, so is morton and i'd probably put schreiber too.

by bravos408 on Dec 20, 2007 9:09 PM EST up reply actions

my top 20 or so..

This is my top 20 or so what it wouldve been around the time all of you did it..
feel free to bash me.. I did it based on my criteria, not putting any item on my criteria before the other. And Also i feel with a lot of these guys, they could have easily been up at least 2 or 3 spots from where they are

Brandon Jones
Jordan Schafer
Manny Acosta
Joey Devine
Jose Ascanio
Tommy Hanson
Brent Lillibridge
Jo Jo Reyes
Jason Heyward
Cole Rohrbough
Cody Johnson
Clint Sammons
Charlie Morton
Van Pope
Jairo Cuevas
Jeff Locke
Zach Schreiber
Sung Ki Jung
Brandon Hicks
Kris Medlen
Deunte Heath
Kala Kaaihue

by bravos408 on Dec 20, 2007 9:40 PM EST up reply actions

others

Others i didnt mention were
James Parr (could be in the top 20)
Eric Campbell
dustin evans (who has a serious arm)
Dan Smith
Michael Nix
Kevin Gunderson
JC Holt (poor guy wont be a braves top prospect but should end up in the big leagues with someone)

Sorry for wasting y'alls time

by bravos408 on Dec 20, 2007 9:48 PM EST up reply actions

My defense

How about Saltalamacchia, Francoeur, McCann, Kelly Johnson, Yunel Escobar, Chuck James, Joey Devine. All of those guys were also top ten guys, all also weren't 26 when they came up, and all posted mostly good stats in the minors. No surprise they are all impact players. There are no impact players on the Braves who were these "poor stats, all tools" guys who have suddenly blossomed. Why would someone post 4.00+ ERAs all the way through the minor leagues and have a break out at age 25? Name some players who fit that category. Now name some players that fit the standard Baseball America or "stat rat" profile. Second one will be pages longer.

As to Sung-Ki Jung, he lost what, 2004-2006 to military service? He hasn't been given the five seasons to prove himself; rather he posted a 2.16 ERA/11.1 K/9 in 2003 and a 1.31 ERA and 10.67 K/9 in 2007, his only two chances in the minor leagues.

If Brad Nelson, IF, he came to the big leagues and posted a 3.40 ERA, I'd be astounded. The chances of that happening are rather low. Certainly not impossible, but why would someone who's 26 be able to hold major league hitters to a 3.40 ERA when he can't even hold AA hitters to that ERA (his was a 3.77).

For Pope, I've heard you have to be able to hit to hold a job in the big leagues (Nick Punto nonwithstanding). He has a stud glove, but for a guy who supposedly had a breakout season in 2006, he had a .263/.353/.426 line. That was his best season out of four minor league campaigns. Is his shot at making the big leagues over? Probably as a regular 3B because there's no reason to expect him to suddenly figure out how to hit major league pitching when he can't hit minor league pitching. It's ridiculous to assume that would happen.

"And I'm glad for Cuevas, and Morton, that you're not the GM of the braves because according to you they have no tools."

Figuring out tools is something for teenagers to do. If you haven't figured out how to get minor league hitters out by the time you're 23, 24, 26 years old, I don't care how fast you throw or how good your breaking ball is, you just don't have much of a shot at the big leagues. At least less of one than the 19 year old with similar talent.

For the record, my definition of a prospect is a player who has the tools that with polish and experience, can be resonably expected to become a contributor at the major league level. That would exclude 26 year old pitcher who've gotten five years of polish and still have rust.

by 17843 on Dec 21, 2007 12:38 AM EST up reply actions

Stats arent everything

I don't mean to make it sound like guys who put up good stats year by year don't have a better chance at success in the big leagues, but have you seen kevin millwood's minor league stats? Or John Smoltz's for that matter?
And Jeff Francoeur (still a "ranked" prospect) did not post any special numbers in the minor leagues...
While guys like Andy Marte rode the #1 prospect chart like he owned it, and what has he done that would make you oooh and ahh? Absolutely jack squat...
You're right, I can't think of a good player off the top of my head who wasn't once a "top 20" prospect somewhere along the way, but I am not very stat or prospect list savvy.. : )
These things change. Pope was ranked 8th last year! And already people are knocking him
And Brad Nelson has posted a career 3.29 era, he's 22-9... He put up a mid 2 era in AAA and a mid 3 in the fall league.. Why the heck would you be surprised to see him have the same success in the big leagues? Is a 3.29 era not enough polish for you? Would you not be happy to see a guy in the atlanta bullpen that can put up his numbers?
And Joey Devine, is not an impact player..If anything for the worse..After how many stints in the big leagues? And still he's not an everyday guy..since 05 was it? C'mon
You'll find a large number of people who know a lot about the game say that minor league stats don't tell the story. I know because i've heard a lot of braves coaches and personel say the same thing
The only reason I know Brad Nelson won't pitch for Atlanta in the big leagues is because his stuff is terrible.. But I doubt you even knew it cause you can't talk about a person's tools if you never see them pitch

by bravos408 on Dec 21, 2007 9:42 AM EST up reply actions

and are you serious

Are you seriously compairing Nelson's 3.77 with a 3.40??? .37 difference??? While you dont even mention he put up a 0 in Myrtle and a mid 2 in AAA...

by bravos408 on Dec 21, 2007 9:44 AM EST up reply actions

and as to sung ki

I love the kid. He's a good player and a prospect to me, but you talk about age as it is a negative thing, and limit's a player physically. You have an extremely broad spectrum when you talk about age. You go from 23-26 or even 28 in sung ki's case. Thats a helluva long time (4,5,6 years?) They call it player development for a reason.
And most of the time in player development, a guy will have a breakout year..at times it could be 2 years into a career, and others it could be 5 or six.. This is a stupid argument, and only because no one knows exactly who's going to be good based on stats..and or prospect rankings.

by bravos408 on Dec 21, 2007 9:56 AM EST up reply actions

And "for the record"

I think any three of the guys just put on the 40 man could go up to the big leagues and put up the same numbers if not better than joey devine (who will very shortly) be a very successful major league pitcher. ; )

by bravos408 on Dec 21, 2007 10:15 AM EST up reply actions

your quote

"Figuring out tools is something for teenagers to do. If you haven't figured out how to get minor league hitters out by the time you're 23, 24, 26 years old, I don't care how fast you throw or how good your breaking ball is, you just don't have much of a shot at the big leagues"

Hmmm ok...
So what your saying is that paul snyder and roy clark should look for other jobs because they're too old? And Dayton and Kurt Kemp should probably too... YOU should be director of player development and scouting director, cross checker, and field director! Because YOU know how to read a stat sheet. And everyone who is 23 or "maybe" 24 and isn't out of high A or maybe AA should be released.

by bravos408 on Dec 21, 2007 11:26 AM EST up reply actions

Again

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

No one should get released simply because they are unlikely to make an impact in the major leagues. That's an extremely stupid idea. All I'm saying here is that these folks you're naming are not "top prospects". They're organizational players who once in a blue moon end up contributing on the major league level.

by 17843 on Dec 21, 2007 2:31 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think you're following this

Why should we expect a guy who's 26 years old to post a better ERA in the major leagues than he did in AA? Seriously, that makes no sense at all.

by 17843 on Dec 21, 2007 2:38 PM EST up reply actions

i'm not puttng words in your mouth

I'm saying blatantly what you said sublty
and secondly, again, why do you rule out the fact that guys with little to no minor league success contribute at the big league level. If brad nelson can't put up anything like a 3 or 4 era in the big leagues they would release him. And morton, release him too, because he can't do better than a low 4. And he's nearing the age you specified. And I beg to differ about their status as prospects. Jairo was ranked in the top 20 of the whole carolina league this year, and morton's stock is rising. And what do your rankings of a player have to do with the actual organizations thoughts of the player? Morton has been advanced every single season except 1 in 05 (as i stated before) put in AA, put on the afl rising stars team where he absolutely dealt then threw 5 innings of no hit ball against the second best team in the fall league infront of bobby, frank and roger. He's got an extremely hard fastball (and is more than a big league plus pitch) he has a "devastating curve", and two other big league pitches which you'll hear about soon enough. Dont be surprised if either or both of these two do something very special because their organization has kept the faith and they have the tools to make an impact.

by bravos408 on Dec 21, 2007 2:49 PM EST up reply actions

Well depends on the list....

Some lists compile a team's prospects by how likely they are to make an impact at the big league level over the upcoming year, and in your argument, those three should be listed. However, most lists rank a team's prospects based on what projections say the player will become once they reach the majors, rather they are 18 or 23. The is why heyward is higher than lillibridge, it is expected that he will a more productive major league than lillibridge will.

by bravessuperbeast on Dec 20, 2007 4:04 AM EST reply actions

Nail on head

You hit it. Everyone in the minor leagues is not on some flat plane of projectability. There are some minor leaguers who are better than others, who are considered to have more tools than others, and top-lists are a good way to flush out the differences between those skills and results. And more often than not, when a good talent evaluator like Goldstein or Sickels ranks people near the top, those players end up being the best major leaguers in the long run.

This list from TPA does address the fact that when people don't take the time to do their own research or even write about why a player is ranked where he is ranked then that list does seem foolish and meaningless.

by gondeee on Dec 20, 2007 10:34 AM EST up reply actions

i see seconbass

I know why people have doubt in kids like Morton, and for good reason..But you saw him pitch one time in 05? I know for a fact that the braves regard his raw stuff as nasty, even in 2005. He was "ranked" in his earlier years with the braves in the top 20 and fell. You don't know a lot about him (which is understandable), but if you ask scouts or braves players or coaches they'll tell you the truth about him. Also now, he's bigger and harder throwing. He's added a slider and a lot more control to his other stuff..He is "coming into his own". I guess you gotta see it to believe it.

by bravos408 on Dec 20, 2007 11:50 AM EST reply actions

Secondbass

Sorry I didn't see that you said you saw Morton all season in rome. We are all entitled to our own opinions and i'm not trying to sway anyone, I like a good argument. I need to add that I know Morton was throwing 89-93 in 05 "about". And the next year in Myrtle beach 91-95. And then this year 93-97..Maybe even 98 in Arizona. See a pattern? And see how the braves never gave up even based on his numbers. You think a guy with no "raw stuff" and those numbers gets advanced every year, or even stays in professional baseball? Think about it. Name some guys who you thought had good "raw stuff" and let me know. Tell me where they are now. Then, tell me how a guy with a 5 plus era stays with the braves and is advanced every year except 1 (repeat year in rome 05), then put into AA after a 5.6 or something ugly, then the fall league? Is it really because he's a "nice guy" and the braves are rewarding him, or is it because the braves believe and are waiting for him to "get it".

by bravos408 on Dec 20, 2007 12:00 PM EST reply actions