This upcoming Saturday is my birthday.  I'm only telling you this because my wife and her side of our family gave me one of the best birthday presents I've ever received.  For my birthday I was able to fly to Beijing from our hometown of Kunming and watch the Dodgers and the Padres spring training game.  As many of you know, it was the first major league series to be played in China.  

It's almost baseball season and being a passionate baseball fan living over here can be somewhat difficult.  I am able to watch the regular season games online either through MLB TV or through the use of a Slingbox that my parents have setup back in Plano.  Our internet connection can barely handle it, as all of China (330 million internet users) are required to use the same ADSL lines for broadband service, and all of these ADSL lines have to go through the filters in Beijing.  Once people start waking up and checking their e-mails nationwide, the speeds online drop dramatically.  So by the time the games get going I'm usually just hearing broken audio, with a new image every fifteen seconds or so.  The other problem is that since we are thirteen hours ahead of Dallas, most games start around 8AM.  That obviously conflicts with regular daytime work and school hours.  When the opportunity arose to go see a real baseball game, free of internet problems or school conflicts, I was ecstatic.

The above picture is obviously my ticket to the game.  All of the seats from third base to first base were at this price or above.  The price of 480 yuan translates to $67.72.  That price is far too expensive for most Chinese who are unfamiliar with baseball, yet there is a rich class in Beijing, and many of them were at the game.  Fortunately, Major League Baseball made the outfield tickets extremely affordable (around $5), but these tickets sold out long before the games began.

The above picture is Wukesong stadium, which is one of the two olympic baseball stadiums built for this summer.  They finished construction literally just last week.

I got to the game a few hours early to catch batting practice and see if I could get an autograph or two.  Neither went quite as planned.  The game started at 1PM, but they didn't allow fans into the stadium until around 11:45AM.  So I had plenty of time to wait outside before the game began chatting with people and watching the general atmosphere before one of China's very first professional baseball games.

As I talked to people, some had been to children's baseball games before, but had never seen a live adult game.  In Beijing, you can get satellite television that includes ESPN Asia, so some of the people had watched MLB games on TV.  Overall, people were very excited and very interested about what was going to happen.

These two pictures are the kind of thing that makes me love baseball.  While we waited outside for them to let us in, people started playing catch.  First, it was the two Chinese men you see in the top picture, and then some others (including this American dad and his son) started playing.

Finally at 11:30AM they let us line up, and at 11:45AM they opened the doors.  Maybe things have changed in the states since I've lived in China, but the security for this game seemed much higher.  We had to x-ray all of our belongings, go through a metal detector and then have someone run a wand over us to make sure we didn't bring anything into the park.  Fortunately, it moved rather quickly, and since I was the third person in my line I wasn't delayed much.

Whenever I first went into the park I immediately went to buy a hot dog.  I had heard on the news the night before that they had real American hot dogs at the game, so I was excited that they had even brought the food of the game to China.  Well, I wasn't really impressed, haha.  The food was all brought in from a local American restaurant called "Tim's Texas Barbecue."  If I ever met Tim I would politely ask him to remove Texas from his name because his food is an embarrassment to those of us who know Texas barbecue.

As you can see, my hot dog was put in a sliced loaf of french bread.  Hot dogs buns have to be imported so I'm not against this cheaper form of bun.  The dog was a chicken dog, and it already had relish and mustard on it when I bought it.  All of that would have been okay if it weren't for the last problem...the "hot" dog was ice cold.  When I asked if they had a microwave or anything to heat it up they said no.  Anyways, it was still kind of cool to be sitting in Beijing, China eating a "hot" dog at an MLB game.

Do you see the difference in the number of media members in these two pictures?  What's the difference?  The reason for the increase in media was that the Dodgers were getting ready to come out of the dugout in the second picture.  I would not be exaggerating to say that nine out of every ten Asian fans that I met at the game were pulling for the Dodgers.  Why?  Because the Dodgers have three Asian players and the Padres have none.  This is a culture that gets behind it's players like nowhere else.  I was told that in Taiwan baseball has become the most popular sport simply because of Chui Long Hu and Chien Ming Wang.  I can attest that one star player has made basketball the biggest sport in China and I believe a baseball star from the mainland could do the same.

Another thing that I quickly found out was that the players wanted to sign autographs and the fans wanted to get autographs, but that the Chinese government did not want to allow what they saw as "crazy fans" getting close to the players.  Clearly this was a part of the foreigner culture that the Chinese were not familiar with.  So since I wasn't able to get any autographs I decided to spend my time finding a way to get onto the field.

Well, I was able to get onto the warning track in centerfield.  I simply walked past one distracted guard outside the back of the stadium and then walked up to the wall where there were three more guards making sure nobody entered the field.  I simply started talking to them in Chinese and they were so impressed that I lived in China and could speak some Chinese that they let me onto the field for a few shots before making me go back to my seat.

As I went back to my seat I ran into these girls.  They were the game's cheerleaders.  The way I heard the story is that when the planners for the game arrived in China they were asked about where to put the cheerleaders.  The Chinese planners were shocked to hear that American baseball doesn't have cheerleaders so they provided some to cheer between innings occasionally and to help sing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame."  Here's a picture of that strangely surreal scene.

Once I got back to my seat it was about time for the opening lineups and national anthems.  

The starting lineups were cool to me because they were translated into the two languages.  It was also somewhat cool to see all of the former Rangers such as Adrian Gonzalez.

The opening ceremonies were very cool.  Bud Selig made his first speech in years where nobody booed.  It was translated into Chinese and was just as generic in Chinese as in English.  The cool part to me was that they had a VJ from MTV Asia leading the opening ceremonies, and Jet Li threw out the first pitch as you can see in the picture below.

Once the game started I sat back and just enjoyed the game with only a few minor distractions.  The atmosphere during the game was great as the Chinese fans were really into it.  Many were not familiar with the game at all, so they would cheer for players and not for the game itself.  Chui-Long Hu was a star despite not being from the mainland of China.  Anything he did received cheers and he got a standing ovation in his last at bat.

There was one thing that happened during a few points in the game that was somewhat comical to me, but also very cool.  The VJ from MTV Asia would come back out between innings and the first time she asked in Chinese "Who's familiar with the rules of baseball?"  The stands were silent.  So she said, "Then let's teach you how to play!"  People started cheering loudly.  MLB has a set of short video clips to help teach the game that they played, and a game of selecting the right answer.  Here's an example below.

It was comical to those of us who know the game because the answers were so simple.  Still, you would hear large crowds cheering for the other options.  China still has a long way to go in becoming a baseball country.  If you know the history of baseball in China, you know that it was hugely popular in the thirties and forties but was outlawed during the Cultural Revolution.  I could definitely see from the little league players that were at the game and from the general excitement that it is going to make a comeback.

The rest of the game was pretty much the same as in America, except for a few poor attempts at contextualizing the game by Major League Baseball such as the "Pagoda Shuffle" instead of the "Pick the Hat" game.  I absolutely loved being there and simply watching baseball.  To tell you the truth, there were some moments when I began tearing up thinking about being able to watch baseball in Beijing.  It was definitely one of the best things I've ever been able to do.

I sat next to a couple of A's fans and was excited that they were also very passionate fans.  They live in Taiwan and were in town just for the game.  They were talking about how popular the game is there, and how it's all because of the Taiwanese players in the majors.  That made me excited to think that this game that I love so passionately could someday be popular in mainland China as well.

If you would like to see some more pictures from the day, here is my flickr site.

Hehe, I just read this at Yahoo.  Enjoy!
Jeter continues to set the bar for consistency.

"If Jeter is weary of the effort after these years, it is not reflected in his demeanor, nor in his game. He toiled all winter on expanding his range at shortstop and had barely wiped the sweat from his forehead when a handful of techies at Penn announced he was the worst defensive shortstop in baseball.

Maybe it's true, but I doubt it. I do know that if there was a roller to the left of the mound, I'd want Jeter coming in from shortstop. If there was a flare dying fast in left field, I'd want Jeter going out from shortstop. And if there was a four-hopper straight at the shortstop to end a game I had to win, I'd want Jeter and his alleged cement-shoed range standing right there."

Forgive me if this has been mentioned somewhere already and if it has the moderators have full authority and permission to delete the diary.

Compared to most baseball sites, LSB's core visitors have a large percentage of statheads.  I know this because I'm among this group, particularly enjoying historical analysis of the great game.

My fascination with statistics began in the mid-1990s when I randomly picked up Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract at the Half-Price Books at Parker and Independence in Plano.  I was in high school and didn't understand half of what he was talking about, but was absolutely fascinated with this different perspective towards the game.

I know that many of you also became fascinated with statistical analysis because of the fine work of Bill James from the late 70s until today.  As such, I was excited to read that he started a website full of statty goodness and lots of intriguing charts.  Furthermore, it's only $3 a month.  So, if you have some extra change laying around and you've already subscribed to Baseball Prospectus, I would highly suggest subscribing to Bill James' site.

Here's the link:  Bill James Online

Most people were probably so sick of this topic that they didn't even click on this diary.  I understand that and feel the same way to a point.  Personally though, I'm looking for the truth in regards to PEDs and their effects and will weigh that information before I start casting stones at the current crop of accused players.  Many of these players have inspired me for many years, and it honestly hurts to see them cast before the angry mob without at least giving them a fair trial.

I think some others feel this same way and as such, some sites are trying to get at the answers to what "real" effects PEDs have on athletes and their performance.  Sabernomics and Will Carroll have both posted interesting research by medical professionals that seems to contradict the assumptions being spewed out as fact by prominent media outlets.

Eric Walker, who most of you Sabermetricians already know, has set up a very informative site called "Steroids and Baseball."  I think it is a wonderful starting point for those who are really interested at getting to the heart of this issue, providing medical information and some fine statistical analysis.  Check it out.

There seems to be a sentiment that John Daniels is addressing the rebuilding of this team in the wrong way.  Some of the common statements here and elsewhere by Rangers fans are:

1.  "Why would you trade a stud young pitcher for an injury prone centerfielder?"
2.  "Why would he go out and sign an injury prone headcase to play the corner outfield spots?"
3.  "This team is most likely the worst that the Rangers have aseembled since 2000."

To evaluate what Daniels has been doing this offseason, we need to look at where the Rangers ended last year.  Despite a strong second half, the team still was rather miserable both offensively and defensively.

Only two teams in the AL had a worse OBP as a team, and they were right in the middle of the pack in SLG.  Only four teams in the AL had a worse batting average.  The Rangers had a below average OPS in comparison to both the AL and all of MLB.  Only one team had more strikeouts, and only three teams took fewer walks.

Yeah, the Rangers hit 56 more home runs than the Angels, and surprisingly were able to score a good number of runs (7th overall).  but the fact of the matter is that the offense was still rather terrible.  So in what areas was the offense worst?

1.  OBP - Only two teams were worse.
   
2.  BA - Only four teams were worse.

In terms of pitching, the Rangers were pretty bad as well.  There were only three teams with a worse ERA than the Rangers.  The Rangers pitchers were right in the middle of the pack in hits allowed, but what killed them was the fact that they were last in the league in strikeouts and second in walks allowed.  Since ERA is a result of a number of factors, what areas would Daniels need to address to help improve pitching?

1.  Pitchers with better K/BB ratios
   
2.  Team defense (particularly up the middle)

So how has Daniels addressed these four highly critical areas in terms of preparing this team for 2008, but ultimately for 2009 and beyond?  Let's look at each one individually.

Team OBP
The worst positions in terms of OBP last year were left field, right field, catcher and third base.  After Teixeira was traded, the first base position struggled in terms of OBP as well.

How has Daniels addressed this problem?

1.  He signed Bradley to play one of the corners.  He has a career .358 OBP and had a .402 OBP last season.  That's a far upgrade over the .323 and .332 OBPs that the corners put up for the Rangers last year.
2.  Obviously, Daniels didn't need to address third base since Blalock is healthy, and when he played last year he had a .358 OBP.  This spot of the lineup is simply fixed by Blalock being healthy.  There's not much Daniels can do about this position.
3.  At catcher, Daniels has committed to having Salty as the regular.  Laird had a .278 OBP last year, and Salty had a .310 OBP.  So that's a slight upgrade, but as we all know Salty has potential to improve on that immensely.  After all, he had a career minor league .370 OBP.
4.  At centerfield, the Rangers put up a decent .343 OBP, but the .368 that Hamilton put up last season is an upgrade.  It's also a huge upgrade in terms of SLG (.554 to .423).
5.  At first base, which was rather bad after Teixeira left, the Rangers are going from Wilkerson (.319 OBP), Botts (.326) and Cat (.328 as a 1b) to Chris Shelton (.348 career / .340 in 2006) and a slight upgrade in Broussard (.330 last year).
6.  The trade for Shelton and signing of Broussard also free up Cat to hit DH.  He had a .363 OBP in the second half of last season compared to the .311 OBP that the Rangers got from Sosa for much of the year.  That is another significant upgrade in my opinion.

Overall I'd give Daniels an A+ in this regard

Team BA
Team batting average should be improved from the reasons mentioned above, but here are some other things to note.

1.  Among hitters with at least 300 ABs, the Rangers worst batting averages belonged to Laird, who is now a backup, and to Vazquez (.230), who shouldn't play much next season at all, and then to Wilkerson (.234), Cruz (.235) and Sosa (.252), who are all no longer with the team.  The next worst hitter was Cat who hit .260 overall.  Cat did hit .288 in the second half though, which bodes well.
2.  The Rangers have brought in Broussard (.275 last year), Shelton (.273 in 2006), Bradley (.306 last year) and Hamilton (.292 last year).

Overall I'd give Daniels an A- in terms of addressing this need.  It's not an A or A+ simply because I don't understand the Broussard signing.

K/BB ratio
Daniels has done the least in addressing this need.  The Rangers still have Millwood who had the best K/BB ratio both last year and in 2006.  That's despite leading the team in BB/9 last season.  Overall, the Rangers have much of the same rotation and bullpen coming back, and their losses are primarily Volquez, Wright and Otsuka.  

Otsuka of course had serious arm problems, but had a 1/1 K/BB ratio before the injury.  In 2006, his K/BB ratio was stellar, but there were too many medical issues for the Rangers to give him a contract.

Wright gave up a ton of BBs.  He had "electric stuff" according to scouts, but was highly inconsistent last season (as he has been through his whole career).

And then there is Volquez, and this is the one that hurts.  Volquez can definitely strike guys out when he's on.  But he can also walk a lot of batters.  He walked just under 4 batters per 9 IP last year in the minors, despite having an outstanding season.  I love Volquez, and think he will end up being a good major leaguer eventually, but also know that losing him does not drastically effect the 2008 Rangers K/BB ratio.

The Rangers brought in Kaz Fukumori, who is a huge question mark, but projects to a mediocre to below average major league reliever and should have little impact on the bullpen.

Like I said before, Daniels has done the least in this area, but ultimately there aren't that many other options.  A Colon/Jennings/Silva type is only slightly better than allowing Mendoza, Murray, Gallaraga, etc. time in the majors...especially when considering their cost.  

Overall I'd give Daniels a C- in this regard.  He didn't improve the team any, but didn't hurt them much either.  Still, the loss of Volquez hurts.

Team Defense
People tend to undervalue the impact that team defense has on pitching.  The pitchers on this team suffered a great deal from poor defense last season, and particularly in the outfield.

If Bradley is healthy and plays a corner spot, then he is a well above average defender.  Hamilton is an above average defensive centerfielder.  Those two spots alone should help upgrade the team defense drastically.

Overall I'd give Daniels an A in this regard.

So despite all of the complaining about how Daniels isn't addressing the team's needs this offseason and how he's making stupid decisions, the fact of the matter is that he is addressing needs and he is making this team better.  Offensively he has made some very good improvements in key stats (i.e. OBP and OPS), and defensively he has upgraded the corner outfield and centerfield rather drastically, which is a key defensive position.

I'd give him an A so far for the offseason, let me know what you'd give him and tell me why in the comments.

Poll

How would you rate Daniels offseason?

7%

C

6 votes

0%

D

0 votes

1%

F

1 votes

34%

A

29 votes

56%

B

47 votes

83 votes | Poll has closed

Wow.  This is pretty negative...but it's not that any of us thought this was a great signing anyways though.

"Texas Rangers - Signed P Kazuo Fukumori to a 2-year contract.

It's official: Jon Daniels thinks that all Japanese people look alike - having a Japanese last name doesn't make you Matsuzaka or Sasaki or Kuroda. Kinda like when Steve Phillips got all excited over Tsuyoshi Shinjo for no reason in particular. Fukomori's had an up-and-down career and arm problems and there's really no reason to sign him for a 2-year deal over signing any random AAA reliever to a minor-league deal. ZiPS has him with a 5.10ish ERA - sorry, it just crashed on me. Think Kevin Gryboski."

The Hardball Times had a roundtable posted this morning with a lot of really positive Rangers items.  Here's what they had to say about the Bradley deal, the Shelton trade and the Gagne contract:

Milton Bradley Signing:

Rangers sign Milton Bradley to a one-year, $5 million deal.

What are the Rangers hoping to accomplish with this deal?

John Beamer: I love this deal. Taking a risk on unpopular players is exactly what a canny GM should do. Recently we've seen Manny Acta do it with Lastings Millidge and Elijah Dukes. The Rangers are doing the same thing taking a punt on Bradley.

Milton Bradley is slightly above average with the bat and average with the glove. In all he is a couple of wins above replacement, so you'd expect (in a rational market) to give him a $9-10 million a year. At $5 million he is a snip. For gravy the Rangers should have tried to sneak in a club option!

Geoff Young: As for Bradley, if he logs even 350-400 plate appearances, this is a steal for Texas. When healthy, Bradley is an impact player. He comes with baggage, obviously, but most bats of his caliber are fetching much more on the open market. The Padres will be hard pressed to replace his production.

Lisa Gray: The media does not like him. And far as I'm concerned, anyone Jeff Truckwasher got a problem with is my kind of ballplayer. Milton's a good ballplayer, when he's not hurt that is; Sort of reminds me of Jeffrey Hammonds

Chris Shelton Trade:

Tigers trade Chris Shelton to the Rangers for Freddy Guzman

Should anyone care about this deal?

Bryan Tsao: I like this move for the Rangers. It doesn't cost them much, and Shelton is actually projected by our newly revamped projection system to hit a not terrible .265/.351/.446, which is in line with Dan Syzmborski's ZiPS projection as well. He's in the first base/corner outfield/DH mix with Milton Bradley, Frank Catalanotto, Jason Botts and Nelson Cruz, and the fact that Milton Bradley is prominently involved means that he should have ample opportunities to prove himself.

Geoff Young: Guzman hasn't been a prospect since his name was Pedro De Los Santos and he played second base in the Padres organization. Shelton should be able to help someone off the bench, although if anyone can afford to cast him off, it'd be the Tigers.

Vinay Kumar: Ouch! Apparently Geoff wasn't a believer when Guzman was hitting .289/.362/.376 and stealing bases left and right in Double- and Triple-A for the Pads in 2004, and was supposed to be the future in center field. Not like I'm disagreeing, as I wasn't too optimistic about what he could do in the majors, either, but that was pretty harsh.

The Gagne Contract:

Brewers sign Eric Gagne to a one-year, $10 million deal.

Did the Brewers overpay, and which Gagne can they expect

John Beamer: I have mixed thoughts about this deal. Ten million dollars is a lot of loot for someone who may only throw 70 innings or so in year. However, if you assume that Gagne is going to close for the Brew Crew (and pitch with a Leverage Index of 2) then that is equivalent to a $15 million deal for a 200 inning starter. On the free agent market we're talking Carlos Zambrano money (for next year).

Is that a good deal for the Brewers? Based on Gagne's Boston performance, no. However, it is only a one year deal and if he reverts to elite closer form (which is unlikely) then it isn't the worst deal in the world.

Bryan Tsao: Not surprisingly, our projection system has Gagne putting up a middling 3.75 ERA in 54 innings next season, which is about what you would expect based on his up and down season. Projecting reliever performance is basically folly, but paying $10 million doesn't leave a lot of room for upside. I like it better than paying what Francisco Cordero got, but you'd think for the organizational resources that $10 million represents they could have taken a few flyers on promising arms or converted starters or something, Padres-style. I can see the argument that says they're paying a premium for a known quantity in their bullpen, but really, is Gagne that guy at this point in his career?

WARNING:  This article projects to be very long.  Sorry.

It's a very difficult endeavor to weigh a prospect's ceiling vs. what they have actually accomplished at the professional level.  I decided to attempt an evaluation of projecting prospects based on Baseball America's top 100 lists.  I picked 1992, 1995, 1998 and 2001 for the evaluation.  Really, after about 2001 it's hard to evaluate since some of those prospects who were in A ball at the time of their projection are just now on the cusp of the majors or have only been in the majors for a season or so.

My idea was to analyze what percentage of Baseball America's top 10 prospects reach the majors and become successful major leaguers.  I also wanted to analyze what level they were at when they were first placed in Baseball America's top 10, and how that correlated to the evaluation.

I also wanted to see what would happen if you jumped down the list to non-elite prospects that were still some of the best in baseball.  I decided to look at the players ranked 20th-24th as well and see how they fared in terms of ever reaching the majors.

1992
The Elites

In 1992, the top prospect in all of baseball was Brien Taylor.  Few prospects have had a ceiling as high as Taylor.  Despite not pitching in 1991 due to contract negotiations with the Yankees, he debuted at the #1 spot in all of baseball.  Unfortunately, he was a headcase and never made it above AA.

The rest of the top 10 included a future Hall of Famer (Pedro Martinez) and a few other good major leaguers.  Here are the breakdowns of their remaining careers.

At the time of the  BA list, two had already debuted in the majors (Todd Van Poppel and Arthur Rhodes), but four had not played above A ball.  The others had at least one year of AA ball and were on the cusp of reaching the majors.  Of the four that had not played above A ball (Salkeld, Taylor, Jones and Rodriguez), one (Taylor) never saw the majors.  Two made the majors but were below replacement level, while Chipper Jones turned into an All-Star (although it still took awhile as we'll see in the 1995 evaluation).

The Non-Elites
Of the five prospects ranked 20th-24th, only one (Raul Mondesi) became anything more than a replacement level player, and two never made the majors.

1995
The Elites

In 1995, the top prospect in all of baseball was Alex Rodriguez.  ARod is arguably already one of the best 10 players to ever play the game, and his future was pretty evident in 1995.

1995 was a very strong year for prospects, as every player in the top 10 made the majors and most were better than replacement level.

What is of interest is that at the time of the list only three of the players had not played above AA, whereas the rest were already in the majors right on the cusp.  One of these three had AA experience, Charles Johnson, and he debuted in the majors in 1995.  The other two are arguably the worst two players on the list:  Ruben Rivera and Ben Grieve.  Rivera was rated as the #2 prospect in all of baseball, yet ended up having a below replacement level career.  Despite having a known name, Grieve somewhat struggled in the minors until his breakout in 1997, which led to his being named the #1 prospect in baseball in 1998, but we'll see that in the next evaluation.

The Non-Elites
Of this season's 20th-24th prospects, three made the majors (Rey Ordonez, Andruw Jones and Nomar).  Of course, Ordonez managed to stay in the majors with stellar defense and horrendous offense.  The other two have been All-Stars.

1998
The Elites

The top prospect in all of baseball was Ben Grieve.  He had one very strong season in the minors (1997), but ultimately could not handle major league pitching with a slow swing and an apparent refusal to heed Canseco's advice and juice up.

Of the top 10 players, once again all made the majors and most have been at least serviceable major leaguers.  

Adrian Beltre, Aramis Ramirez, Matt White and Kris Benson had not played above AA.  Matt White was the furthest at the time (having not played above A+) from the majors and never made it to the majors.  Of course Ramirez, Beltre and Benson have all been serviceable to good during their careers.

The Non-Elites
Of the non-elites, three made it to the majors (Matt Anderson, Sean Casey and Ryan Anderson).  Matt Anderson had yet to pitch above A ball and never reached his potential at the major league level despite starting strong in 1998.  Ryan Anderson was a top pick, but hadn't played above A ball.  He couldn't cut it in the majors and is seriously now pursuing a new career as a chef.  Sean Casey is the best of the lot.  Sean Casey had already played AAA ball by 1998 and has ended up being a serviceable first baseman at the major league level (although I think his career is drawing to a close after a terrible season this year).

2001
The Elites

This list may be the most depressing of all.  At the top of the rankings is Josh Hamilton.  We have all read his story.  He was an elite prospect who struggled with drug addiction and then made an amazing comeback this season only to have it tainted by steroid suspicions.

Of the top 10, Beckett, Sheets, Sabathia and Ichiro have become stars.  Rauch, Patterson, Burroughs, Anderson and Johnson have struggled showing they are major league quality players.  

This year was BA's largest group of projections as most of the players were still a good ways from the majors.  Of the top 10, Hamilton (#1), Patterson (#2), Beckett (#3), Rauch (#4), Burroughs (#6), Sabathia (#7) and Nick Johnson (#10) had yet to play above AA.  Only Sabathia, Johnson and Burroughs had even played in AA for more than a month.  Of course, Sabathia and Beckett (who were both surprisingly drafted out of high school) ended up being quality major league players.

The Non-Elites
Three of these players made the majors (Hee Sop Choi, Austin Kearns and Joe Borchard).  Only Austin Kearns has ended up being an above replacement level player.  At the time of the list Kearns had yet to play above A ball so he was a solid projection by the BA staff.

Some Conclusions

1.  Projecting the major league future of minor leaguers is nearly impossible.  Some of the top 10 prospects ended up being stars, while others never saw the majors.  These were the elite prospects who you would think would all make the majors at and least be serviceable.
2.  As expected, the further a prospect was from the majors at the time of the evaluation meant a lower percentage for the prospect actually panning out.
3.  As you would expect, after the top 20, there are still good prospects that will make the majors, but the percentages get much lower.

The Rangers currently have one of the best farm systems that they've had in a long time.  The problem is that most of the elite prospects are still a good ways from the majors.  The LSB community prospect list only has three prospects in the top 10 that have seen a full season at AA or better (and one is Duran who some still don't believe is a legit prospect).

Then we have the very strong crop of young prospects like Andrus, Beltre, Beavan, Castillo, etc.  None of these players will crack BA's top 25.  Possibly someday, but definitely not yet.  Based on the minimal amount of research done above, I think we would be lucky for three of them to pan out and we should be ecstatic if two of them become above average major league players.  That's not a knock to our scouting or player development...it's just the reality of projecting players that are so far away.

A couple weeks ago somebody asked what the 2011 Rangers would look like.  Most of the responses included Teagarden, Hurley, Beavan, Whittleman, Davis, Andrus, Beltre, Ramirez, Bourbon, et. al.  The reality is that only a small group of them will ever see the majors, and by 2012 only a few of the names we hold so highly now will even be on our radar (of course I hope their are some other names on the radar by that point to keep us excited).  I would love for them to all pan out.  Heck, I would be ecstatic if half of them turned into serviceable major leaguers, but that unfortunately isn't reality and even the best teams that were built from homegrown talent were a mix of homegrown talent and smart free agent signings.

I do not understand T.R. Sullivan's continued support of Sosa.  In his article today he said, "Club MVP:  The vote here goes to Sammy Sosa."  To me the MVP must be either the best player on the team, or at least an essential clubhouse leader.  Does Sosa meet these criteria?

1.  Was Sosa the best player on this team?
He wasn't even close.  Here are some of the pertinent stats with their rank on the team in parentheses (minimum 150 ABs on the season):

OPS:  .779 (9th)
EQA (Adj. for season):  .259 (7th)
WARP3:  2.8 (7th among hitters)

He didn't even lead the team in the one stat that everyone points to in reference to how successful a season he's had...RBI's.  He came in second to Michael Young.

Really, it's a joke that this guy was our designated hitter for most of the season.  There were few designated hitters in all of baseball that were worse, but among those just about everyone was released or benched.

2.  Was Sosa an essential part of this team?
It's hard for me to say that anyone is essential when the team was out of contention all season.  Still, he wasn't essential enough to stay in the lineup all year, and wasn't being offered at the trade deadline for nothing at all (and the Rangers still couldn't find any takers).

3.  Was Sosa the clubhouse leader?
Once again, it's hard to argue that he's been more of a clubhouse leader than Young.  Of course, we don't have access to the clubhouse, but those who do seem to say Young is the leader among the position players.

Conclusion
There is no logical reason to say that Sosa should be this team's MVP above guys like Young and Kinsler.  That statement was simply ludicrous.

I'd love to hear someone make the case that Sullivan is right.  I just can't figure out anyway to justify his perspective.

First, I've gotta say that Washington seeking a closer perturbs me. That is one of the last things this team needs to overspend on during the offseason. I didn't like Buck, but after season number one, I can't say I like Washington much better. Anyways, for the month of September the bullpen has pitched rather poorly.  I don't need to post the stats if you've been watching the games, but just to give a glimpse here are the September numbers for some of the usual relievers that we've seen this month:

Joaquin Benoit - 6.00 ERA
Frankie Francisco - 6.00 ERA
Wes Littleton - 7.93 ERA
C.J. Wilson - 8.59 ERA
Bill White - 7.50 ERA
Jamey Wright - 2.70 ERA

Of this group, only Jamey Wright has pitched well.  It's been a very poor month for the bullpen, which has been the main highlight of this team coming into September.  The common theme that we hear as to why the bullpen is struggling is that they have been "overused."  My question was whether or not this is actually the case, so I did a little research.

There is no indication that these pitchers have pitched more innings in September than they have the rest of the year.  The Rangers have not relied significantly more on the bullpen this month than any other month, so that's not the reason.

So have they simply pitched too much this year and are simply exhausted?  Here are their season IP totals (as of last night):

Joaquin Benoit - 80 IP
Frankie Francisco - 57 1/3 IP (+6 in AAA) - Total - 63 1/3 IP
Wes Littleton - 46 1/3 IP (+32 1/3 in AAA) - Total - 78 2/3 IP
Bill White - 6 IP (+50 1/3 in AA/AAA) - Total - 56 1/3 IP
C.J. Wilson - 67 1/3 IP
Jamey Wright - 73 IP

So are those numbers significantly more than their previous three seasons?  Here are their IP totals for 2004-2006:

Joaquin Benoit (minors+majors)
2004 - 105 IP
2005 - 94 IP
2006 - 79 2/3
Three Year Avg. - 93 IP
Differential of 2007 #1 (vs. 3 year average) - 16% less
Differential of 2007 #2 (vs. 2006) - 0% change
2006 September - 4.32 ERA

Frankie Francisco
2004 - 69 1/3 IP
2005 - 6.1 IP (injury)
2006 - 26.3 (injury)
2006 September - 4.91 ERA

Wes Littleton
2004 - 141 IP
2005 - 81 2/3 IP
2006 - 80 1/3 IP
Three Year Avg. - 101
Differential #1 - 22% less
Differential #2 - 2% less
2006 September - 1.42 ERA

Bill White
2004 - 53 IP
2005 - 42 IP
2006 - 64 IP
Three Year Avg. - 53 IP
Differential #1 - 6% more
Differential #2 - 12% less

C.J. Wilson
2004 - N/A (injury)
2005 - 106 1/3
2006 - 57 1/3
Two Year Avg.  - 82 IP
Differential #1 - 18% less
Differential #2 - 17% more
September 2006 - 4.50 ERA

Jamey Wright
2004 - 78 2/3 IP
2005 - 171 1/3 IP
2006 - 156
Three Year Avg. - 138 2/3
Differential #1 - 47% less
Differential #2 - 53% less
September 2006 - 7.20 ERA

So although it does seem like the bullpen as a whole has been taxed this season, it does not appear that the current relievers have been overused to any significant point.  Although the bullpen has been called on a lot this year, we must remember that at times this year Gagne, Mahay, Otsuka, Eyre, Wood, Feldman, Murray, etc. have all pitched and accounted for a good portion of those bullpen innings pitched.

So although the bullpen has been horrid for most of this month, it is not from being overworked.  It just appears that some of the relievers are having off months at the same time.

Any other ideas as to what is the problem?

It's a somewhat dark day for Chelsea fans, as we've had a love-hate relationship with Jose Mourinho during the past few seasons.  He's undoubtedly one of the best top men in the world, yet his antics can irk management and the fans rather regularly.  I'm a little sad about his departure (especially how it came about), but think that Chelsea will still be one of the top teams in the EPL.  It's good to have guys like Avram Grant and Steve Clarke to step in.

What do you all think of the departure, and does this mean that Chelsea are no longer among the favorites to win the Premiership this year?

Poll

Chelsea:

73%

They will end behind most other big clubs, but still be a good squad

11 votes

13%

They will tank after the departure of Mourinho and struggle all year

2 votes

13%

They will break out of their scoring slump and eventually win the EPL

2 votes

15 votes | Poll has closed

I always think of the American League as the home of the big power hitters.  This is probably because of the designated hitter, but it isn't always the case.  The last time an American League hitter smacked 60 home runs was 1961 (Roger Maris obviously).  Since then, the feat has occured six times, but all in the National League.  The sixty home run mark has been surpassed thrice by Sosa, twice by McGwire and once by Bonds.

This year could end up being one of the least powerful in quite awhile though.  Currently only two players in the American league have hit 30 home runs.  Only 23 have hit 20 (including the great Brad Wilkerson).

At this pace, Morneau (29), Hunter (27), Konerko (27), Ordonez (26), Dye (26) and Ortiz (26) will most likely reach 30 home runs.  If they pick up the pace, Sheffield (24), Matsui (23), Sizemore (23), Cust (23), Thome (23) could possibly also reach the 30 home run mark.  Still, that's only 12 and considering that Sheffield is on the DL and Jermaine Dye is struggling through quadricep problems it's possible that less than 10 players reach the 30 home run mark in the AL.

Ignoring strike shortened seasons, the last time the American league failed to have ten players reach the 30 home run mark was 1992.  Even in the deadball 80s it was fairly common to have around 7-8 players in the American league hit 30 home runs, which might be a realistic ending to this season.

Surprisingly, despite the lack of power in the AL, ARod is on pace to hit more than 50 home runs.  The last time that a player hit 50 or more home runs in the American league, and the league as a whole didn't have 10 players reach 30 home runs was 1990.  Before that, it was 1961 when Maris hit 61, five other players broke the 40 home run mark and nobody else broke 30 (odd, huh?).  When Mantle hit 52 in 1956, he was only one of three players to break thirty (Wertz hit 32 and Yogi had 30).  Of course, it was fairly common when Babe Ruth was mashing 50+, and Jimmie Foxx did it once as well (1932).

In an age when we expect players to hit 60 home runs, we may be missing out on one of the better home run hitting seasons ever by Alex Rodriguez.

How impressive?  Looking at the American League, we can compare the three most recent times that a hitter has broken 50 home runs, yet there have not been 10 players to break 30 homers, to see just how impressive this season is for ARod.

In 1992, Cecil Fielder hit 31% more home runs than the second place hitter that season, and 38% more than the third place hitter.  That's amazing and rather dominant.  Even more amazing than 1961, when Maris hit 13% more homers than Mickey and 33% more than the next two hitters on the home run list.  

In 1956, Mantle had a truly spectacular season winning the AL home run title by 20 home runs.  He hit 63% more home runs than Wertz and 73% more than Yogi.  That's spectacular and one of the most dominant home run hitting seasons ever.  Clearly one of the best home run hitting seasons ever in the AL.

Currently, Alex Rodriguez is on pace to hit seven more home runs and end the season with 53.  Pena is on pace to hit four more and end the season at 39.  Morneau is on pace to hit four more and end the season at 33.  So Rodriguez is on pace to hit 36% more than Pena and 61% more than Morneau.  The only season since Babe Ruth, which ended with a more spectacular differential was Mantle's unbelievable 1956.

Even if you factor in the entire history of the National League, the only time a hitter has hit fifty homers and had as impressive of a differential between the second and third place home run hitters was 1949 when Ralph Kiner hit 50% more than second place and 74% more than third place.  Willie Mays had a season that was close in 1965 hitting 33% more than McCovey and 53% more than Williams, but still ARod's current season is more impressive.

If we go ahead and add Babe Ruth to the mix, we can rank the seasons in order of differential between the top three home run hitters in seasons that the leader hit at least 50.

Player (Year) - Differential between second and third

1.  Babe Ruth (1927) - 28% and 233%
   
2.  Babe Ruth (1928) - 100% and 218%
   
3.  Babe Ruth (1920) - 184% and 218%
   
4.  Mickey Mantle (1956)- 63% and 73%
   
5.  Ralph Kiner (1949) - 50% and 74%
   
6.  Jimmie Foxx (1932) - 41% and 66%
   
7.  Alex Rodriguez (2007) - 36% and 61%
   
8.  Willie Mays (1965) - 33% and 53%

Even if ARod only hits five more and Pena and Morneau match him with five more, he will still end the season 28% better than Pena and 50% better than Morneau, meaning that he would drop one spot on the list above.

So in an age when a player hitting 50 home runs doesn't seem as exciting, we could easily miss out on what might end up being one of the top 10 most dominant home run hitting seasons ever.

Let me begin by stating my biases.  I have always believed that the relief ace concept introduced by Bill James makes much more sense than the current closer idea.  It makes more sense to use your best reliever in situations where the game is on the line, rather than solely in the 9th inning if the opponent is within three runs.  For instance, it is a higher pressure situation to come into the seventh inning of a tie ballgame with runners at first and third than it is to come in with a three run lead in the ninth and no outs.  We have so glorified the save to the point that we are underusing our best relievers so that we only use them in save situations.

Now, with that bias laid out for all to see, I was shocked to read this statement from T.R. Sullivan's latest mailbag concerning C.J. Wilson:

"A first rate closer is as important as a #1 starter."

I've read plenty of articles where sportswriters glorify and overrate the closer role, but never to this extent.  Just to prove that Sullivan is wrong, I decided to do a little research into the comparisons between a top rate closer and #1 starter.  Please do not misinterpret this and think I am saying that relievers are not as valuable as starters (because I believe they often are just as valuable to the team), but I am saying that the best of closers is not as valuable as a true #1 starter.

Comparisons

For starters, I took three of the best seasons ever by closers (1990 Bobby Thigpen, 2003 Eric Gagne and 2002 John Smoltz), and compared them against the top three of the best starters from last season (Brandon Webb, Johan Santana and Francisco Liriano).  The stats I looked at were total innings pitched, strikeouts, walks, wins and losses, saves, ERA, batting average on balls in play, OPS against, DERA (adjusted for defense), wins above replacement player (WARP3) and pitching runs above replacement.  Both of the latter stats are adjusted for all-time.  Here are the results for the closers:

1. Bobby Thigpen (1990) - 88.7 IP, 70 Ks, 32 BBs, 4-6 (57 saves), 1.83 ERA, .234 BABIP, .554 OPSa, 2.53 DERA, 8.7 WARP3, 79 PRAR
   
2. Eric Gagne (2003) - 82.1 IP, 137 Ks, 20 BBs, 2-3 (55 saves), 1.20 ERA, .250 BABIP, 375 OPSa, 1.62 DERA, 10.2 WARP3, 92 PRAR
   
3. John Smoltz (2002) - 80.1 IP, 85 Ks, 24 BBs, 3-2 (55 saves), 3.25 ERA, .276 BABIP, .569 OPSa, 5.8 WARP3, 3.69 DERA 54 PRAR
   

Clearly, Eric Gagne's season in 2003 was the best season ever by a closer.  He was purely dominant.  Bobby Thigpen has the record for most saves in a season, but you can see that he was largely helped by his team's defense (.234 BABIP).  Gagne's dominance translated into wins (10.2 WARP3), but if we agree that this is the best season ever by a closer, then it should have translated into wins.  For T.R. Sullivan's contention to be right, then the best season ever by a closer should be at least as strong as the best starters last year, right?  I mean, these aren't the best seasons ever by pitchers, just the best from last year.  Here are the results for the starters:

1. Brandon Webb - 235 IP, 178 Ks, 50 BBs, 16-8, 3.10 ERA, .291 BABIP, .650 OPSa, 3.10 DERA, 9.2 WARP3, 95 PRAR
   
2. Johan Santana - 233 IP, 245 Ks, 47 BBs, 19-6, 2.77 ERA, .271 BABIP, .618 OPSa, 3.00 DERA, 10.6 WARP3, 102 PRAR
   
3. Francisco Liriano - 121 IP, 144 Ks, 32 BBs, 12-3, 2.16 ERA, .283 BABIP, 5.66 OPSa, 2.34 DERA, 7.2 WARP3, 68 PRAR
   

First, I should note that Roy Oswalt also had a very good season last year, but I believe that Liriano's season was superior despite the limited number of innings pitched.  The first difference that I notice is team defense.  Only when comparing Smoltz to Santana does the closer have a better batting average on balls in play.  This led me to research team defense in relation to inning, which I'll mention later.  The other thing that stuck out to me was that Gagne's 2003 season still produced less team wins (according to WARP3) than Santana last year.  Santana had a great year, but it wasn't the best ever by a starter.  For instance, Pedro Martinez had a WARP3 of 13.4 in 1999 and 14.4 in 2000 (those are some of the greatest seasons ever by a starter), so there's a considerable difference when comparing best ever season's closing to best ever season's starting.  Also, there is a considerable difference in pitching runs above replacement.  This stat estimates how much of a run differential that this pitcher makes for a team.  Despite Liriano only pitching 121 innings as a starter last season, he made more of a run differential for the Twins last season than Smoltz made for the Braves in 2002.  Both Brandon Webb and Johan Santana made more of a total difference for their teams in this regard than Gagne did in his spectacular 2003 season.

The impact of Team Defense

While comparing the pitchers above I noticed the difference in BABIP between starters and closers.  Was this a coincidence?  I looked up the Rangers 2007 season (so far) to see if this trend was the case.  Does the Rangers BABIP improve as the game progresses?  It actually did.  Between innings 1-3, the BABIP was .312, 4-6 was .328, but 7-9 was .275.  The ninth inning was actually the best inning in terms of BABIP for the Rangers (.265).

So was this a statistical anomaly, or was this consistent across baseball?  I randomly checked some good and bad teams (Red Sox, White Sox, Pirates, D-Backs, Nationals and Angels).  Outside of the White Sox and Nationals, the 7th-9th innings were best in terms of BABIP.  In the case of the Nationals, the 1st-3rd innings were only .001 better, and the White Sox were actually the anomaly with their BABIP being the highest (.317) in the 7th-9th innings.  So I checked for all of major league baseball, and this is what I found.  1st-3rd (.301), 4th-6th (.305) and 7th-9th (.295).  The best inning across baseball is the ninth (.284).

I did some more research this afternoon and found that both DERA and DIPS3 show this same trend. For some reason, team defense improves in the latter innings of a game, and is best in the 9th inning. Unfortunately, neither BP nor Baseball Reference offered fielding splits per inning, so I was not able to see if this trend was visible in more than these three stats, but I think they are enough to prove the trend.  I have no idea why team defense appears to improve in the late innings of ballgames (and particularly in the 9th inning), but I do think it is worth noting in evaluating the importance of a closer.

Are Closers That Much Better?

The Rangers have been blessed to have a great bullpen this year.  But how much better was Eric Gagne than the rest of the bullpen?  If OPS against is the standard, then he wasn't better at all.  As a Ranger he had a .746 OPS against when closing.  Compare that to some of the other good Rangers relievers in "Late & Close" situations:  Wilson (.519 OPSa), Benoit (.556 OPSa), Otsuka (.491 OPSa).  What about guys that some would not put in that top group?  Francisco (.549 OPSa) and Eyre (.588 OPSa) have done pretty well (Feldman and Littleton haven't).  The point is that although Gagne was glorified as a top deadline acquisition and as the best available closer at the trade deadline, he hasn't been considerably better than the Rangers other relievers.  Don't get me wrong.  I think signing Gagne was a good thing, and I think he is a very good pitcher, but he's not as valuable as a #1 starter by any means.

For another comparison, I looked at Gagne's numbers as the Rangers closer versus all MLB starters through their first 25 pitches.  The OPSa for Gagne was .746, whereas it was only marginally higher for all starters (good and bad) through their first 25 pitches (.772 OPSa).

Conclusion
There is no comparison.  A great starter is much more valuable than a great closer.

Maybe I should stop reminiscing about the days when T.R. Sullivan was a legendary writer for the Star Telegram, because we are quickly moving to the point were he's a generic writer.  As we have seen last year and this year, he tows the company line and regurgitates the hot topics of major league baseball.  This mailbag was no different.  Despite Nate Gold being a 27 year old non-prospect, he's popular and starting to get some media attention, so T.R. says "somebody has to give this guy a shot."  Sammy Sosa is still a big story, so T.R. will continue to be his biggest supporter.  The closer is viewed as the ultimate bad-boy pitcher, so he'll say they're as valuable as a top starter.  It's rather sad...

T.R. was one of my absolute favorite all-time baseball writers.  I used to subscribe to the Star Telegram a few years back basically for his articles.  Still, this season he seems to have taken a turn for the worse.  He made a few statements in this latest mailbag that really bother me, but two really stick out.  Here's the first:

Sosa is currently the team leader in home runs and RBIs. Do you think his current role on the team is fair?
-- Angelo B., New York City

No, it bothers me. He did everything the Rangers asked, exceeded expectations as a player and was a positive influence in the clubhouse. He has handled his current role with grace and understanding. The Rangers definitely need to give Jason Botts a chance, but it's hard to watch Sosa go through the rest of the season as a part-time player.

What does this team owe to Sammy Sosa for a mediocre first half of the season?  That's what they asked him for, and that's basically what they got.  I don't understand the mindset that this team owes him anything.  The Texas Rangers are a business, and they have to look to the future.  Every plate appearance that Sammy Sosa receives is a plate appearance that should have gone to someone else.

I'm most likely going to do a whole (probably long) diary on the other quote that bothered me later in the day (it's only 9am here).

At the beginning of the year, everyone was very disgruntled when Kameron Loe was put into the bullpen while Jamey Wright was put into the starting rotation.  I'm pretty sure I was personally pulling for Bruce Chen...so yeah, in retrospect none of the three options were that good.

The fact of the matter is that at this point Kameron Loe has proven that he would be a solid long reliever, but most likely doesn't have a future as a starter with the Rangers.

In the second half of 2005, Kameron Loe appeared to have a potentially strong future as a starter.  As a starter in the second half of that year he was 4-2 with a 2.70 ERA.  His peripherals were not as pretty since he struck out only one more batter than he walked and allowed a hit per inning.  He was exceptional at keeping the ball on the ground though and only allowed two home runs after becoming a starter.

In 2006, I believe that Kameron Loe took a step back.  Possibly though, his peripherals were simply catching up to him.  He started fifteen games, had a 5.86 ERA and 1.621 WHIP.  Despite pitching just under twice as many innings, he allowed five times as many home runs.  He allowed 1.34 hits per inning, and although his K/BB ration improved to 3/2 (from 1/1 in 2005), but his OPS against soared from .649 to .845.  His ERA+ was 80.

The result of his apparent decline into 2006 might have also been due to team defense as his BABIP soared from .258 to .321.  In other words, in 2005 he was relying rather heavily on his teammates defensive play.

In 2007, Kameron Loe has seen results more in line with 2006 rather than 2005.  After last night, he is now 6-9 with a 5.56.  At face value, it may look like he is pitching at the same level as 2006, but this really isn't the case  His K/BB has declined (64/50), his WHIP is almost identical (1.602), and his ERA+ is right at 80 once again.  But, whenever you consider that his BABIP has improved from .321 to .307, you realize that he hasn't been pitching as well, because despite getting similar results he's done so with better defense behind him.

Games like last night are a good example of how Kameron Loe pitches a game.  He allowed eight baserunners in five innings, threw nearly as many balls as strikes leading to five walks.  He only K'd two batters...but he didn't allow a run.  If you simply glance at the box score you may think it was a well pitched game, but in reality it was a good defensive game by the Rangers and a pretty poor game from the mound.

A couple of months ago it might have been argued that he simply had some mental issues that were worked out in AAA and that he was now improving.  That can't really be argued anymore.  In fact, back in June whenever people thought he had turned a corner, he was actually once again relying on team defense as his OPS against soared to .895 for the month.  In June  and July he allowed 72 hits in 62.1 innings, including an additional 30 BBs.

I'd love to see the guy turn a corner.  He's one of the nicest guys that I ever met whenever I lived in Frisco and frequented the games.  He actually hung out with my family for probably thirty minutes one year at spring training during dinner at P.F. Changs.  Still, he's about to turn 26 next month and has nearly 300 innings under his belt.  It's likely that he's to the point where he is what he's going to be.  In my opinion, that's a solid bullpen arm.  From this point on, I'd like to see his rotation spot filled by Edinson Volquez.

Julio Borbon is returning to Tennessee for another season according to TR Sullivan.

Does anyone have any news on Gast yet?  I'm almost as excited about him as I am about Beavan/Main.  He has an equal upside after he overcomes the injury.

So I have to fill some space here.  Has anyone played the Bioshock demo on Xbox360 yet?  Does it look and play as amazing as everyone says?  How about Madden?  Did they improve over what was a poor showing from last year?  Is this enough characters yet?  Really, you don't have to talk about XBox360 since I'm more concerned about Gast.

Drew Davidson has an article up about how the negotiations between the Rangers and Beavan's advisors are coming.  The article mentions that the big sticking points are whether or not this will be a 2007 or 2008 deal and whether or not the Rangers will give Beavan an over-slot bonus.

Beavan does have another less than likeable quote (which can only be for posturing sake, but is almost laughable it's so unrealistic).  He says this in the article about not signing and playing at Navarro next year.

"It definitely would be an option," Beavan said. "I could play there a year and maybe be in the top-five next year and get twice as much."

I'm not trying to knock Navarro, because we all know it has one of the best JC abseball programs in the country, but Beavan moving from #17 to #5 would be an incredible jump, requiring one of the most spectacular seasons in the history of JC pitchers.  

The way I see it is that Alvarez will go #1 with guys like Wallace, Smoak, Thompson, Matusz, Weeks, Ross from the college ranks right behind him.  Then you high schoolers like Hosmer, Marrs, Kelley, Miller, Hicks, et. al. who are wildcards at this point but depending on this season, any of them could end up being top 10.  I think even with an incredible season at Navarro it would be very difficult for Beavan to jump into the top five.  

Teams aren't going to like the fact that he didn't sign either.  I would guess that barring any injuries and having a very, very good season could move him up to 10-15, but he's already at 17 and should just get a deal done.  Is there enough of a financial difference between 17 and 12 that it would be worth the risk of going to Navarro for a year?

Despite all of this, I really hope a deal gets done.  Despite my obvious preference for college pitchers and my disdain for overpaying draft picks, I really want to see this guy on the farm soon because he does have a ton of talent.

There's a poll at the right on what you think will happen.

Poll

What Will Happen?

12%

Beavan's advisors will cave and sign at slot

13 votes

69%

They will come to an agreement at slightly above slot

71 votes

7%

The Rangers will cave and Beavan will get a very good bonus

8 votes

9%

Beavan will be the anchor of the Navarro rotation next season

10 votes

102 votes | Poll has closed

Going back to the trade, I don't think it's been too concealed that I'm a McCarthy supporter.  All season, I've contended all that he's been our best starter.  He seems to only be improving, and I like to see that happening.

For the season, he 18 starts and one relief appearance, and has allowed more than three runs in five of those appearances.  But, only two of those bad appearances have come since May 1st.  And on the opposite end of things, he has five appearances where he has only allowed one run.

One negative is that he has only gone six innings ten times.  With that said, partially this goes to management decisions.  He's only topped 100 pitches on five occasions, which is okay, because I don't want them to overwork a young pitcher (especially with the season being a loss).

T.R. Sullivan is saying that some of his sources are saying that the Braves trade might be "falling apart."  I think the Salty, Elvis, Harrison trade was strong, but that if the Rangers could have improved on Harrison they should have tried.

I've got to think that if it truly is falling apart it means:

1.  The Rangers have a better offer on the table that Atlanta either can't or won't match.
2.  The Rangers think more of the Angels proposal of Kotchman + whoever else (the reports are so varied).
3.  The Rangers played hardball and wanted to wait it out to the deadline and Atlanta wanted it done now.

My fear is that if it was the latter it means that one less team is fighting for Tex and the Angels will not be willing to part with as much.  I still am very questionable of any Dodgers offer.  I love the idea of Loney/Either + one more, but every report says that the Dodgers "might" be interested, or that there is a "proposed" offer.  Few say anything of major league sources, and those with major league sources usually say that the Dodgers are more concerned with finding a starter right now.

If the Braves pull out, then who is still in?  The Angels are definitely in.  The Dodgers are questionable.  Nobody else has been consistently reported as in, although I found the BP note concerning the Lofton trade as interesting, since it said that they had not originally started talking because they sought Lofton, but were in on Teixeira.  Maybe some other quiet teams are in on Tex.

There was a very interesting, and strange statement at the end of T.R. Sullivan's mailbag today.  It said that Rangers have had internal discussion concerning using Padilla as closer.  

When Sullivan mentions "internal discussions," he isn't talking about his small talk with the bat boy following the game as some writers do.  He has better internal sources for the Rangers than any other writer in America.  He's by far the most respected writer in the area, and usually doesn't throw speculations out there without real credibility unless making that very clear.

If there were discussions then the Rangers have considered the possibility of a bullpen without Aki, Gagne or even Benoit.

Here's why I fear the possibility of Padilla closing games for the Rangers:

1.  Financial Reasons - Padilla will cost the Rangers 11 million next year and 12 million in 2009, with a club option in 2010 for 12 million.  That's a steal for a solid #3 starter, but pretty decent money for a closer.  Realistically, the Rangers could sign Gagne for a similar contract over the next three years and have one of the greatest relievers of our time closing their ballgames.  If Padilla could perform at Gagne's level then this might be a reasonable deal, but realistically moving Padilla to this role would cost the team similar money as they would have to replace Padilla in the rotation, and that's just as costly.
2.  WHIP Issues - Padilla has an issue with walks.  He was in the top 10 for total walks last season, and a career 1.38 WHIP aren't good stats for a closer.  Remember all of the fears we had when Cordero (1.35 WHIP) would come into a game and allow a hit or walk to start the inning?  Yeah...If Eric Gagne can be had at similar money, then there is no comparison since he has a WHIP under 1.00 as a reliever.
3.  First Batter Issues - Let's forget this season.  Last season was seen as a breakout year for Padilla, and I think we would all agree that if he performs at that level, then his contract is a steal.  But even in his breakout season, he struggled against the first batter he faced.  He allowed a 132 OPS+ against first batters faced (.872 OPS).  He has allowed a scary 1.319 OPS against first batters faced this season.  For comparison, Gagne has allowed a .693 OPS against first batters faced (.670 OPS for first inning faced).  Otsuka has allowed a .425 OPS against first batters faced.  In other words, Padilla doesn't quite cut it against first batters faced.
4.  Pressure Situations - The role of closer requires you to handle pressure well.  With runners in scoring position this year, Padilla has a .814 OPS against.  In the very high pressure situation of the opponent being within a run, he has a .945 OPS against, and within two runs a .883 OPS against.  Gagne on the other hand, has a .356 OPS with RISP, a .655 OPS against when opponents are within a run, and a .555 OPS against when they are within two runs.
5.  Too Early to Give Up - It really is too early to give up on Padilla as a starter.  He's 28 years old, and had a very good season last year.  I don't believe that he simply turned it on for a contract year and has now turned on cruise control as many on this board have suggested.  That's ridiculous.  He's simply having a bad year, and those problems will hopefully be fixed once the elbow and mechanical issues get resolved.  He had ups and downs in Philadelphia and will have them here as well.

Now, the Rangers might have just been throwing names around, and Sullivan's sources might have just mentioned it briefly, but I just don't see any reason why the Rangers would use Padilla as a closer.  He is much better as a starter.

I personally would prefer Littleton or Francisco closing games since both have the quality of stuff required for a closer.  Also, if the Rangers do not intend on extending Wilson back into a starter's role, then I would think that he would be a candidate as well.  The Rangers have the young arms in the bullpen to go closer by committee as well.

Who do you see as a future closer for the Rangers?

Poll

Who should close for the Rangers in 2008?

4%

Frankie Francisco

2 votes

2%

Wes Littleton

1 votes

65%

Eric Gagne or Aki Otsuka

30 votes

13%

C.J. Wilson

6 votes

4%

Free Agent Acquisition Like Cordero

2 votes

10%

Joaquin Benoit

5 votes

46 votes | Poll has closed

Hicks is focused on 2008, and says that the Rangers will not have a firesale before the trade deadline according to T.R. Sullivan.

Hicks is quoted as saying, "There will be no fire sale...If we have a chance to improve our club for 2008 and 2009, we will do it. But if we don't like what's out there, we won't do it. The good thing about losing free agents is you can still get draft picks as compensation."

You do get draft picks Mr. Hicks, but none of them will contribute in 2008 or 2009, but that's neither here nor there.

He also has this very Jerry Jones-esque confusing quote, "We had a great first half and we all expected to come out of the game strong. For a lot of reasons, it didn't happen."

After these quotes, how many trades do you think the Rangers will make before the deadline?

Here's the link:  http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070712&content_id=2083355&vkey=news_tex&fext=. jsp&c_id=tex&partnered=rss_tex

Poll

How many trades will the Rangers make before the deadline?

16%

1 major trade - Like Gagne or Tex

8 votes

39%

2 trades

19 votes

29%

3 or more trades

14 votes

6%

None - Hicks overreacts to the progress of the team in June

3 votes

8%

1 minor trade - Like Sosa or Lofton

4 votes

48 votes | Poll has closed

As many of you, I'm a fan of Kinsler.  The Baseball Analysts blog doesn't share the love.

They did a breakdown of the bottom 10 hitters in terms of BABIP, and Kinsler fell right in the middle.  Here's what they had to say:

Ian Kinsler's BABIP was .310 in his rookie season in 2006 with virtually the same LD% (20.6%) as 2007 (20.2%). Although the second baseman's .241 AVG is well off the pace last year (.286), his .334 OBP and .452 SLG are almost identical to the previous campaign (.347 and .454). As such, Kinsler has been as productive this year as last. Kinsler's problem is that he just isn't as good as his overall numbers suggest.

           AVG    OBP    SLG    OPS   BABIP
Home      .297   .366   .531   .897   .306  
Away      .242   .318   .378   .696   .255      

Take Kinsler out of Texas and one would have a hard time justifying his presence in any starting lineup.  He just turned 25 so it would be unwise to write him off prematurely. Kinsler has a few tools and could very well become a valuable player. In the meantime, be careful in not getting swept up in his unadjusted stats.

Are you really telling me that they would start Freddy Sanchez or Ray Durham over Kinsler?  Come on...and everyone's beloved Robinson Cano...his OPS is .046 lower than the dreadful Kinsler.

Okay, I know that I might offend some of you by questioning an American legend and all, but...

In the past we have deified Maris' 1961 season as one filled with adversity and overcome by true grit and determination.  But as I think about the reasons people say Bonds used steroids, they are all equally apparent in Roger Maris.

In 1961, Roger Maris:

1.  Suffered from extreme depression
   
2.  Suffered from surprising hair loss
   
3.  Suffered from extensive rashes and skin breakouts
   
4.  Had an enormous spike in performance (which actually began in the second half of 1960)
   
5.  Increased size for the 1960 season (which he carried into 1961)

Steroids were used for enhanced muscle mass and endurance throughout the 1940s, and were widely used in hospitals for the same things they are used for today.  

In the past we've always chalked up Maris' problems to the nervousness that accompanied the chase for 61, but why is it such a stretch to think that Maris might have been using steroids in 1961 as a performance enhancer?  It's not like they were illegal or a banned substance at the time.  And since other performance enhancers such as "greenies" were so common at the time, why is it a stretch to think Maris could have been on something?

I don't know if anyone noticed, but Sosa's little five game hot streak following his 600th home run is officially over.

His OPS+ is now at 94.  What that means is that our designated hitter is hitting below league average.  Among guys with at least 150 ABs, that's fifth (out of eight guys with at least 150 ABs).  That's behind Wilkerson, Lofton, Tex and Kinsler.  Sosa now has dropped below a .300 OBP as well.  That's unacceptable for a guy who is a DH and therefore only on your team to hit.

Just to give a quick comparison, here are the OPS+ stats for some other AL designated hitters:

Cust (Oak) - 169 OPS+
Sheffield (Det) - 154 OPS+
Ortiz (Bos) - 153 OPS+
Thome (Chi) - 152 OPS+
Hafner (Cle) - 126 OPS+
Giambi (NYY) - 121 OPS+
Thomas (Tor) - 114 OPS+
Committee (Bal) - 103 OPS+
Sammy Sosa (Tex) - 94 OPS+
Jose Vidro (Sea) - 92 OPS+
Cirillo (and committee) (Min) - 89 OPS+
Norton (and committee) (TB) - 85 OPS+
Sweeney (KC) - 82 OPS+
Hillenbrand (and now Vlad) (LAA) - 68 OPS+

So the guys below him are Vidro (just barely), Cirillo, Sweeney, Norton and Hillenbrand.

Sweeney was on his way to being traded or replaced in the lineup by Butler, Hillenbrand is out in LA and Norton and Cirillo have been battling injuries this season.

Basically, below Sosa are a bunch of scrubs.  So for all of you who keep hollering that we should trade Sosa, please realize that there's a reason why nobody's asking for him.  He's simply not having a good season and has little to no value.

Tonight Craig Biggio got a hit for the 3000th time.  That just sets another milestone for one of the best players of our era.

If he were to hit another 14 home runs, he would have 300 home runs, 400 stolen bases, 3000 hits and a surefire first ballot entry into the hall of fame.

He's a true athlete who has played left field, centerfield, second base and catcher for extended periods throughout his career.  He has a career .365 OBP and 113 OPS+.  In the mid-90s few players were better when he was consistently in the top 10 in terms of OBP, hits, runs, singles, doubles, stolen bases and walks.

This is most likely his last season, but it will end an oustanding career.

Congratulations to Craig Biggio!

I know that most of the board thinks that if the Rangers are unable to sign Beavan that it will be terrible for the future of the club, but I have another take.  I don't believe the Rangers need to go much, if any, above slot money to sign Beavan and if he chooses to go to JuCo then that's okay if the money would have been too much in order to complete the deal.  Here are my reasons:

First, out of all of the high school pitchers taken in the first round during the last 25 years, the vast majority did not, nor will ever make it to the major leagues.  The percentage of high school pitchers taken in the first round who have made the major leagues (from 1980-2002) is under 25%.

Second, out of the top two high school pitchers drafted from 1990-2002 (who should have made the majors by now), only 46% made the majors and only 23% turned out to be relatively good.  C.C. Sabathia, Jon Garland, Josh Beckett and John Patterson are the only ones that had an extended period of being very good (and Kerry Wood had a few seasons of pure brilliance).  These are the elite high school pitchers, and still the percentages are very low.  None of us would argue that the hype surrounding Beavan compares even relatively to that surrounding Wood, Beckett, Patterson or Sabathia.  They were all projected much better than Beavan when they were drafted.

Third, Beavan was taken third among high school pitchers.  The numbers for the third high school pitcher taken in the draft are even worse than the numbers mentioned above for those taken first or second.  Only 42% made the majors, and only 33% pitched in at least 50 major league innings.  Of those four, only one is a star (Chris Carpenter).  The other three are Shawn Estes, Adam Eaton and Zack Greinke.  But, of the four that have pitched in at least 50 innings, none were taken as low as 17th.

Fourth, out of the 90 pitchers that are considered one of the top three starters by their respective teams, only 12 (13%) were high school pitchers taken in the first round.  Of those, only 8 (9% overall) were taken 15th overall or later.  Those seven are Jeremy Bonderman, C.C. Sabathia, Cole Hamels, Matt Cain, Scott Kazmir, Adam Wainwright, Gil Meche and Roy Halladay.  Interestingly enough, three of those came from the 2002 draft which might have been the best draft for starters in the history of the draft (Loewen, Grienke, Francis, Saunders, Kazmir, Hamels, Ring, Guthrie, Blanton and Cain have all pitched in the majors).  Now, out of the eight high school pitchers drafted 15th or later, at least three that I know of were taken that low because of injury and signability issues (Kazmir, Sabathia and Hamels).  Beavan dropped to 17th not because of injury or signability, but because of scouts fearing his mechanics.

All I'm saying is that if we think he is going to be a top 3 starter for the Rangers then history says we have about a 10% chance; only about a 33% chance that he will see 50 major league innings and only about a 43-45% chance that he will even make the majors at all.  Sure, he could end up being Matt Cain, Roy Halladay or Jeremy Bonderman...but those chances are extremely slim and considering the negative reviews his mechanics keep getting I'm not too hopeful at this point.  

If you can sign him for slot money or slightly above then great...but if it takes much more I say we let him go pitch in Corsicana.  

I'm sorry to post two diaries at the same time.  Forgive me.  In Spring Training we heard that Ron Washington would bring the Oakland philosophy with him and help teach the Rangers patience at the plate.

I'm wondering what happened?  Currently there are only two Rangers with an OBP over .335.  They are Mark Teixeira (.405) and Kenny Lofton (.360).  To be fair, so does Marlon Byrd, but the sample size is still pretty small.

Both Blalock and Young are in the low .330s.  Cat, Sosa and Diaz all have OBPs below .300.  That's simply unacceptable by any standard.  

The team OBP is .323 currently.  To compare, last season it was .338, and spawned us to go into the offseason saying that we needed a coach who would help teach patience at the plate.  If the team were to continue at this pace, it would be the lowest Ranger's team OBP since 1992, and one of the worst in the history of the team.  It's a far cry from the playoff years when the Rangers' team OBP was consistently over .350.

Furthermore, this team has guys who have historically gotten on base at a much higher average.  Young has a career OBP of .343, Lofton of .372 (although his .360 is currently second best on the club), Cat of .359, Wilkerson of .356 and Sosa of .344.  

They've gotta be kidding right?  I was shocked to read on the MLB Trade Rumors blog as well as on the Chicago Sun Times site that the Rangers have had talks with the Cubs about acquiring Jacque Jones.

That is a move that would make absolutely zero sense.  That career OBP of .326 is pretty ugly, and not the direction that this team needs to take in a right fielder.  Furthermore, his career OPS+ of 100 is the definition of average.

This season he has a 64 OPS+.  That is worse than Frank Catalanotto (74 OPS+), Gerald Laird (73 OPS+) and way worse than everyone's punching bag, Brad Wilkerson (98 OPS+).

This move would make zero sense from any angle.

He's a horrible, horrible person.  I would never want to meet the guy in person.

But I would want him to play for the Rangers, because he's a really good baseball player.  Exceptionally good.

Rumor has it that the Devil Rays are trying very hard to trade him but finding no partners.  That most likely means that the Rangers could get him relatively cheap.

He's young, very talented and a nutcase.  The Rangers were able to handle Carl Everett, Ugueth Urbina and a handful of other nuts, so I think this franchise could handle him as well.

Acquiring him for cheap could be the best trade the Rangers make this season.

Sorry this one's long...

Many people are complaining about not taking Harvey when we had a chance in the first few rounds.  He would have cost a good bit of money and considering the risk involved with taking any high school pitcher, I think the Rangers did the right thing in letting him slide and taking Beaven and Main instead (although those picks don't particularly excite me either because of the stats below).

Here are the top high school pitchers taken from 1990-2002.  I stopped at 2002 because that would give the pitchers at least four full seasons to develop in the minors.  In other words, they should probably be in the majors by now or at least knocking on the door.

Year - Name - Team - Draft Spot - MLB starts - career ERA

1990 -  Kurt Miller - Pirates - 5 - 9 MLB starts - 7.48 ERA
1991 -  Brien Taylor - Yankees - 1 - Never
1992 - Jim Pittsley - Royals - 17 - 29 MLB starts - 6.02 ERA
1993 - Kirk Presley - Mets - 8 - Never
1994 - Doug Million - Rockies - 7 - Never
1995 - Kerry Wood - Cubs - 4 - 178 MLB starts - 3.68 ERA
1996 - John Patterson - Expos - 5 - 78 MLB starts - 4.32 ERA
1997 - Geoff Getz - Mets - 6 - Never
1998 - J.M. Gold - Brewers - 13 - Never
1999 - Josh Beckett - Marlins - 2 - 146 MLB starts - 3.78 ERA
2000 - Mike Stodolka - Royals - 4 - Never
2001 - Gavin Floyd - Phillies - 4 - 19 MLB starts - 6.96 ERA
2002 - Christopher Gruler - Reds - 4 - Never

Out of those seasons, 58% have yet to pitch in the majors, only five ended up making more than 10 major league starts, and I'm assuming that only three of those teams are happy with how their first round pick turned out.  Those teams are obviously the 1995 Cubs (Wood), 1996 Expos (Patterson) and 1999 Marlins (Beckett).

Furthermore, nobody was saying that Harvey (or Beaven and Main for that matter) had Kerry Wood or Josh Beckett type stuff coming into the draft.  Yes, Harvey was one of, if not, the top high school pitcher in the draft, but both Wood and Beckett were rated exceptionally high coming into their drafts.  Far superior to any pitcher save Price in this draft (and both were probably better rated than Price as well).

But let's assume that the first picks were just flukes and look at the second high school pitcher taken in those drafts.

1990 - Ron Walden - Dodgers - 9 - Never
1991 - Kenny Henderson - Brewers - 5 - Never
1992 - Jamie Arnold - Braves - 21 - 7 MLB starts - 5.73 ERA
1993 - Matt Drews - Yankees - 13 - Never
1994 - Jaret Wright - Indians - 10 - 171 MLB starts - 5.09 ERA
1995 - Ariel Prieto - A's - 5 - 60 MLB starts - 4.85 ERA
1996 - Matt White - Giants - 7 - Never
1997 - Jon Garland - White Sox - 10 - 202 MLB starts - 4.39 ERA
1998 - C.C. Sabathia - Indians - 20 - 198 MLB starts - 3.91 ERA
1999 - Josh Girdley - Expos - 6 - Never
2000 - Matt Harrington - Rockies - 7 - Never
2001 - Colt Griffin - Royals - 9 - Never
2002 - Adam Loewen - Orioles - 4 - 25 MLB starts - 4.98

Okay, now out of this bunch, obviously the 1998 Indians (Sabathia), 1997 White Sox (Garland) and 2002 Orioles (Loewen) are rather happy, and I suppose the 1994 Indians (Wright) and 1995 A's (Prieto) weren't too dissapointed.  Most of these teams were sorely dissapointed though.

It is worth noting that out of these 26 picks, 10 were top 5 picks.  Without signability issues, I would assume that Harvey would not have been picked in the top five overall if signability were an issue, because he still falls behind Price, Moskos and Detwiler in terms of pitchers.

So out of a total 26 picks, six turned out to be very good picks (Wood, Garland, Sabathia, Loewen, Patterson and Beckett).  Loewen is still questionable, but appears to be headed in the right direction.  That gives you a 23% chance of getting a very good pitcher.  Of these 26 picks, 54% have never pitched in the majors.  If you add decent and bad major league level pitchers (Wright, Pietro, Miller, Floyd, etc.) you have a 42% chance of getting someone.

These are the first two high school pitchers taken in the draft over a 13 year period, so I think that's a pretty good sample size.  Not very appealing, huh?  Now let's compare college pitchers.

1990:
Alex Fernandez - White Sox - 261 - MLB starts - 3.74 ERA
Donovan Osborne - Cardinals - 140 MLB starts - 4.03 ERA

1991:
John Burke - Astros - 9 MLB starts - 6.75 ERA
Joey Hamilton - Padres - 209 MLB start - 4.44

1992:
Paul Shuey - Indians - 451 MLB relief - 3.57 ERA
B.J. Wallace - Expos - Never

1993:
Darren Driefort - Dodgers - 113 MLB starts - 4.36 ERA
Brian Anderson - Angels - 245 MLB starts - 4.74 ERA

1994:
Paul Wilson - A's - 153 MLB starts - 4.36 ERA
Dustin Hermanson - Padres - 180 MLB starts - 4.21 ERA

1995:
Jonathan Johnson - Rangers - 4 MLB starts - 6.63 ERA
Mike Drumwright - Tigers - Never

1996:
Kris Benson - Pirates - 195 MLB starts - 4.34 ERA
Branden Looper - Reds - 584 games (just became starter) - 3.59 ERA

1997:
Matt Anderson - Tigers - 257 relief - 5.19 ERA
Jason Grilli - Giants - 16 MLB starts - 5.46 ERA

1998:
Mark Mulder - A's - 199 MLB starts - 4.11 ERA
Jeff Austin - Royals - 7 MLB starts - 6.75 ERA

1999:
Kyle Snyder - Royals - 29 MLB starts - 5.58 ERA
Bobby Bradley - Pirates - Never

2000:
Adam Johnson - Twins - 4 MLB starts - 10.25 ERA
Justin Wayne - Expos - 8 MLB starts - 6.13 ERA

2001:
Mark Prior - Cubs - 106 MLB starts - 3.51 ERA
Dewon Brazelton - D-Rays - 43 MLB starts - 6.38 ERA

2002:
Bryan Bullington - Pirates - 1 relief - 13.75 ERA
Jeff Francis - Rockies - 84 MLB starts - 4.72 ERA

Now, there are clearly less stars, and due to them being college pitchers 75% of these picks were top five picks (as compared to 38% of the high school pitchers), but I promise you that if you do the same thing with the third and fourth college pitchers taken if you feel that's a better comparison but the results are almost identical (and you have some good players like Barry Zito, Jeff Weaver, Billy Koch, Matt Morris, Mark Redman in this #3/#4 college group).  If you do the same calculations with the third and fourth high school starters taken...haha, it's pretty ugly.

So basically among college pitchers taken, 88% made the majors with Prior, Mulder, Wilson, Looper, Benson, Fernandez and Shuey being the upper end of things.  69% have played in over 75 MLB games, and 27% would have been considered good at one point in their career.

Among the high school pitchers taken #1/#2, 46% made it to the majors and 35% have played in 75 MLB games, and 23% turned out to be good.  Those who turned out to be good were/are better than those who turned out to be good among the college pitchers.

Basically, here's what I'm saying in regards to Harvey.  If you spend the money on Harvey, there is only a small chance that he turns out to be a star (and he's nowhere near a Beckett or Wood, so probably only about a 10-15% chance he's a star).  There's only about a 35% chance that he ends up being a servicable major league pitcher.  Is that something that you're willing to risk millions of dollars and a major league contract on whenever you can have slightly lower percentages with Beaven for far less money and no major league contract?

Furthermore, I'm saying that you shouldn't get your hopes up that either Beaven or Main will be the future of this franchise.  The percentages are so low that either make the majors and even lower that they become a star (especially since Beaven was the #3 high school pitcher taken and Main was #6 among high school pitchers).