Deals will get done if...

[66-70-83-??]

Nobody in our system has the potential to be as good as Kershaw, nor is as likely to reach that potential as Kershaw.

That is a ridiculous statement.

Why ? Because BA or Milb "says so" with their rankings ?

What do these pitchers have in common:

Avery

McDonald

VanPoppel

Salkeld

Rhodes

T Hill

K Wood

M White

P Wilson

Alan Benes

Ankiel

Chen

Rauch

Beckett

Sheets

Foppert

Contreras

Prior

F Hernandez

E Jackson

They were all ranked as the #5 prospect (or higher, 1 thru 5) in Baseball Americas Top 100 List dating back to when they started it in 1990 thru 2004.

Do you like that track record ? That list represents EVERY pitcher to get a ranking of 5 or higher by BA.

Are you still sure Kershaw is going to be a stud ?

[Mackus]

Are you still sure Kershaw is going to be a stud ?

I never said Kershaw was certain to be a stud, so don't put words in my mouth.

What I said is no prospect in our system has the potential that Kershaw does. And thats true. Kershaw is a HOF caliber talent and is already far enough along to assume that at the very least he is going to be an outstanding MLB pitcher.

There is nobody in our system that has that type of HOF upside, and certainly nobody is as likely to become a #1 starter as Kershaw is.

But please, continue telling me how ridiculous that statement is.

[hoosiers]

That is a ridiculous statement.

It is not a ridiculous statement. It is highly unlikely that any pitching prospect currently in our system will be as highly rated as Kershaw is now. Kershaw is as close to a perfect pitching prospect as exists. One would be hard-pressed to design a path for a HS pitcher that would result in a quicker or more successful rise through the minor leagues - I'm sure it's been done before, but it doesn't happen often.

I'm not sure how your list disputes Kershaw's POTENTIAL. Your list seems to deal with Kershaw's possible PRODUCTIVITY. Those are two very different things. Your list hints at the uncertainty of top pitching prospects realizing their potential and that is undeniable - though certainly similar risks exist for hitters.

[Hank Scorpio]

MacPhail on (ew) Anita Marks right now.

[66-70-83-??]

I never said Kershaw was certain to be a stud, so don't put words in my mouth.

What I said is no prospect in our system has the potential that Kershaw does. And thats true. Kershaw is a HOF caliber talent and is already far enough along to assume that at the very least he is going to be an outstanding MLB pitcher.

There is nobody in our system that has that type of HOF upside, and certainly nobody is as likely to become a #1 starter as Kershaw is.

But please, continue telling me how ridiculous that statement is.

i didn't put words in your mouth. No, you didn't say he was "certain" to be a stud. You said he was "likely". That is pretty close.

Your exact phrase was nor is as likely to reach that potential as Kershaw.

"likely to reach that potential" certainly infers he is probably destined for greatness.

And that is what I found silly.

TNSTAAPP

Kershaw, at this point is nothing more than a lottery ticket with a small potential for a big payoff.

Brien Taylor, Van Poppel, Avery, Beckett were all ranked the #1 prospect in MLB by BA. I am sure they had all the physical talent that Kershaw has.

[66-70-83-??]

It is not a ridiculous statement. It is highly unlikely that any pitching prospect currently in our system will be as highly rated as Kershaw is now. Kershaw is as close to a perfect pitching prospect as exists. One would be hard-pressed to design a path for a HS pitcher that would result in a quicker or more successful rise through the minor leagues - I'm sure it's been done before, but it doesn't happen often.

I'm not sure how your list disputes Kershaw's POTENTIAL. Your list seems to deal with Kershaw's possible PRODUCTIVITY. Those are two very different things. Your list hints at the uncertainty of top pitching prospects realizing their potential and that is undeniable - though certainly similar risks exist for hitters.

Hoosiers,

Go back and re-read it.

Nobody in our system has the potential to be as good as Kershaw, nor is as likely to reach that potential as Kershaw.

I never said anything about any of our guys getting as highly rated as Kershaw.

I could care less how high our guys get "rated" by BA, BP, MILB, etc...

So, Kershaw has a "#4" ranking. That and 2$ gets him a grande house brew at Starbucks.

Considering the track record of the blessed pitchers (ie the ones who get the high rankings) I don't know how one can say with a straight face that any of them are more likely than others to reach their potential.

What criteria makes Kershaw more likely to reach his ceiling than Taylor, Avery, or Loewen or Beato, or any other young pitcher today ?

[mikegallo]

i didn't put words in your mouth. No, you didn't say he was "certain" to be a stud. You said he was "likely". That is pretty close.

Your exact phrase was nor is as likely to reach that potential as Kershaw.

"likely to reach that potential" certainly infers he is probably destined for greatness.

And that is what I found silly.

TNSTAAPP

Kershaw, at this point is nothing more than a lottery ticket with a small potential for a big payoff.

Brien Taylor, Van Poppel, Avery, Beckett were all ranked the #1 prospect in MLB by BA. I am sure they had all the physical talent that Kershaw has.

Right Kershaw a huge gamble and Kemp is no doubt a star now...Kemp>kershaw and its not even close for me.

I thinkpeople are underestimating how great a LaRoche/Kemp deal would be...I take those two over any two we are likely to get and I believe that is a big return for Bedard along with a decent pitching prospect from the Dodgers.

[66-70-83-??]

Right Kershaw a huge gamble and Kemp is no doubt a star now...Kemp>kershaw and its not even close for me.

I thinkpeople are underestimating how great a LaRoche/Kemp deal would be...I take those two over any two we are likely to get and I believe that is a big return for Bedard along with a decent pitching prospect from the Dodgers.

I agree.

Kershaw is no doubt talented. But, he is still too far away. He is still a big question mark. I would still like to have him. But, I would rather have mlb ready guys like LaRoche or Hu.

That is why most prospect deals involve multiple prospects for a stud. There is a much better chance that one will pan out in the end if you get several.

And that is why the first rumored offer (which may have been bogus) of Kemp and Broxton was a good deal. They are no longer prospects. They are MLB players.

[Mackus]

Your exact phrase was nor is as likely to reach that potential as Kershaw.

Nobody in our system is as likely to become a #1 starter a Kershaw is.

Kershaw doesn't even have to hit his ceiling to become a #1 starter. His ceiling is even higher than that.

Its absolutely absurd to suggest anybody in our system has the type of potential that Kershaw has. And even if he doesn't fully max out, if he reaches 80% of as good as he can be he's still better than almost everyone in our system even if they hit their full ceiling.

Comparing him to past #1 SP prospects is fun, but ultimately worthless. All it does is show that there are risks with any SP. There certainly are. He could flame out and never pitch in the majors. But there are such things as starting pitcher prospects. Every good pitcher was once a starting pitcher prospect, so they clearly exist. They have a lower success rate than their equally rated position player counterpoints, but they are still incredibly valuable.

[srh523]

I agree.

Kershaw is no doubt talented. But, he is still too far away. He is still a big question mark. I would still like to have him. But, I would rather have mlb ready guys like LaRoche or Hu.

That is why most prospect deals involve multiple prospects for a stud. There is a much better chance that one will pan out in the end if you get several.

And that is why the first rumored offer (which may have been bogus) of Kemp and Broxton was a good deal. They are no longer prospects. They are MLB players.

While I agree Kemp is the better more proven talent for now, Kershaw isnt far away at all as the Dodgers have told him he will be in ST to compete for a spot in the rotation.

He might not make it this year (if he stays a Dodger) but for sure by next year.

[Mackus]

I would still like to have him. But, I would rather have mlb ready guys like LaRoche or Hu.

You'd take LaRoche or Hu over Kershaw? Thats utterly insane. Kemp makes some sense, because he's got big time potential and has already done it at the MLB level. But LaRoche hasn't proven anything and doesn't have a super high ceiling, and Hu doesn't even have a real high ceiling, he peaks out as an above average to borderline AS caliber SS.

[B-more]

I never said Kershaw was certain to be a stud, so don't put words in my mouth.

What I said is no prospect in our system has the potential that Kershaw does. And thats true. Kershaw is a HOF caliber talent and is already far enough along to assume that at the very least he is going to be an outstanding MLB pitcher.

There is nobody in our system that has that type of HOF upside, and certainly nobody is as likely to become a #1 starter as Kershaw is.

But please, continue telling me how ridiculous that statement is.

I would argue that we do have guys with the same or similar upside. Erbe has that upside of being a #1 and obviously whether he reaches that upside is put into question with his struggles in High A. We have some guys with very good upside....with Kershaw having more success at his very young age and a high ceiling at AA already is why he is rated so high. Bedard was never rated as high as Kershaw, although he was ranked very high before his tommy john surgery in the minors, but look at him now.

We have guys with the potential to perform as good or even better than Kershaw in the majors. I think that was nyjimbo's main point. We have a more young pitchers that have #1 or #2 potential ceiling than hitters with the same or close to the same ceiling as Kemp. So getting Kemp > than getting Kershaw is what I think is nyjimbo and some of the other's arguments with our demands for Kershaw vs. Kemp. And with really young pitchers, one arm injury can derail a career very fast and is more likely to occur to a young pitcher than a young hitter.

[NATTYBO's]

I never said Kershaw was certain to be a stud, so don't put words in my mouth.

What I said is no prospect in our system has the potential that Kershaw does. And thats true. Kershaw is a HOF caliber talent and is already far enough along to assume that at the very least he is going to be an outstanding MLB pitcher.

There is nobody in our system that has that type of HOF upside, and certainly nobody is as likely to become a #1 starter as Kershaw is.

But please, continue telling me how ridiculous that statement is.

Who though Bedard would be Bedard - IMO -Usually the ones with so much potential are the ones that don't pan out.

[Sports Guy]

Kershaw clearly has more upside than anyone we are talking about for the Dodgers....However, he is also probably less of a sure thing than Kemp or LaRoche are.

I would like to get Kershaw but I prefer Kemp to him.

[Big Mac]

MiLB's rankings aren't worth jack... that's probably the only list where Maybin will be ranked higher than Kershaw. Buccholz is still a prospect, and that's where the argument is.

Yeah, those rankings are pretty worthless, wasn't Joba Chamberlain ranked like #5 or something?