Who will be the #7 and #8 prospects?

[DirtyBird]

Somebody wake up Tony.

[weams]

1 minute ago, DirtyBird said:

Somebody wake up Tony.

That's @Tony-OH

Maybe he is busy. Or waiting for lunch since there are four. 

[DirtyBird]

8 minutes ago, weams said:

That's @Tony-OH

Maybe he is busy. Or waiting for lunch since there are four. 

How am I supposed to get any work done?

[weams]

2 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

How am I supposed to get any work done?

It's a hard life. Work. 

[DirtyBird]

Lowther, #8. Wow.

[Aristotelian]

I am missing on all of these. Can't argue though, Lowther deserves it. I was wondering if either he or Wells would make it in the top 10 with similar profiles. One thing I really like about Wells is the low walk rate.

[Frobby]

23 hours ago, Frobby said:

Looking at 7-10 together was a bit of a brain-teaser, but here was my logic.   
 

1.   You’ve got 6 guys for 4 spaces, so 2 guys have to be eliminated.   I think Akin is currently at the bottom of the totem pole for these pitchers, and it’s premature to put Henderson in the top 10 even though he could end up a really top prospect.   So, removing Henderson and Akin eliminates 2 options from the 7-8 list and 3 options from the 9-10 list.   
 

2.   Once you do that, Baumann-Lowther is impossible for 7-8 because the two options for 9-10 contain either Baumann or Lowther.   Likewise Kremer-Harvey is impossible for 6-7 because the two choices for 9-10 each contain Kremer or Harvey.   That leaves Baumann-Harvey as the only option 7-8.    I think Baumann has the edge over the other options at 7 anyway, based on comments from Tony and Luke throughout the year, so I went with that one.

3.   That leaves only Lowther-Kremer at 9-10.   
 

All pretty logical so long as you think Henderson and Akin are the odd men out.   If Henderson is in, it could be Henderson-Baumann and then Lowther-Kremer.   
 

Wow, this is pretty fun.   Lots of great choices in these slots.   

Sigh....all that logic, down the drain!

[LookinUp]

8 hours ago, Pickles said:

Here's my reasoning that this is too high for here:

I think his days as a SP are over.  He got BAD results last year starting.  Go look at the numbers.  He was the worst of the AA starters by far.  Between not getting results, and the arduous process of building him up to the point he could throw 180 innings a year, imo it's safe to say he won't start anymore.

So he's a BP guy.  Ok, fine.  He can still have a future here, and help.  However, on a "Who would you rather have?" kind of evaluation, anybody who has MOR upside is more valuable.  Unless you think Harvey goes full Britton in the pen.

So if you want to rank him over Akin?  Sure, I get it.

But over Baumann, in particular, I don't see it.

All reasonable points. For what it's worth, I saw Harvey live in Bowie one time last year and he was dreadful. People were squaring up that 98 mph and landing it on the wrong side of the fence. I actually thought we over rated his Baltimore bullpen time too. His command wasn't very good, in my estimation.

With all of that said, I am very sympathetic to the argument that he can be better, much better. He missed a TON of time. He essentially spent a developmental year usually split between A- and A+ ball in AA, AAA and the majors. So, while I haven't read the write-up on him yet, there's at least some hope that he's actually a lot better than what we saw last year, even if the likelihood is quite low of him hitting that ceiling. 

Long story short, I pretty much agree with your ranking rationale.

[Frobby]

10 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

All reasonable points. For what it's worth, I saw Harvey live in Bowie one time last year and he was dreadful. People were squaring up that 98 mph and landing it on the wrong side of the fence. I actually thought we over rated his Baltimore bullpen time too. His command wasn't very good, in my estimation.

If you look at Harvey’s starts last year, it was feast or famine.  He had games like:

5.0 IP, 1 H, 0 R

6.0 IP, 2 H, 0 R

6.0 IP, 6 H, 1 R

7.1 IP, 5 H, 2 R (1 ER)

But he never had two good outings in a row.    He was much better out of the pen.    I’d leave him in relief without thinking twice.   

[LookinUp]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

But he never had two good outings in a row.    He was much better out of the pen.    I’d leave him in relief without thinking twice.   

I think his great starts are reason to hope (even if not predicting) that he could build mechanical consistency and repeat those results instead of being totally off one day and great the next.

I agree that the probabilities of success for him are much higher in the pen, but isn't that the case for everyone? I'd make sure he's not a starter first, personally. Maybe they feel like they already have. I really don't know.