They used 2008 as pluses for some and then ignored 2008 for others. Cristian Santana and Fabio Castillo in the top 20? Wow.

but yeah, those rankings suck.

enjoyed the read, but yea, i think id have to say some of it was off from what alot of us think. Then again, its always nice to hear anothers opinion

Wow…never seen that coming

Just a very weird list. Andrus at 2? Smoak 5? Main not in top 10?

Guess that just shows how stacked our minor league talent is

This goes to show you that people know mostly only about their own prospects. We all know who the major ones are outside of the Ranger organization, but we don’t have the expertise. That is why Mariner fans have Michael Saunders as a possible #1 organizational prospect, and I think he’s barely a top 5 for them.

. . . I was JUST responding to LSJ commenting that having Teagarden 4th or 5th and/or ahead of Max Ramirez is outrageous and how he thinks no one argues that he could be special.

Though my reasoning was largely that the people I’ve come to respect think such, and I actually don’t know anything about Camden Depot.

I’ve never been a big fan of classifying starting pitchers using the 1-through-5 system. There’s really not much substance to it. I mean are there 30 pitchers in baseball who are “Number One” Pitchers? If not, should the bar be lowered? How much better is a “Number 3” over a “Number4?” What ERA correlates to a “Number 2?” How about WHIP? FIP?

And now that I’m reading so many prospect reports where some player is projected to be, or has the potential to be, a “Number 3” Starter, I’m left believing that a “Number 3” is just code for “I don’t want to look foolish if he turns out to be really good or really bad.” On this list, there was one player who projected as a “Number 1” (Neftali Feliz), one who projected as a “Number 2” (Derek Holland), six were projected “Number 3’s” (Martin Perez, Eric Hurley, Wilfredo Boscan, Neil Ramirez, Michael Main and Robbie Ross), and two whose future were likely as a “Number 4” (Joe Wieland and Fabio Castillo).

It seems that there should be just as many guys who project as “Number 2’s” as there are who project as “Number 3’s” in the league. Otherwise, a reassessment of the criteria used in the valuing what calibera pitcher is or can become. That is, if there were criteria in the first place.

Good to see other’s POV on the Rangers prospects. I may not agree with the rankings, but perhaps we are too close to the sitchu to make totally rational judgments.