2011 Reader Top 30, #24

2011 Reader Top 30

Good friend of the site Michael Schwimer takes the 23rd spot in this year’s voting, and with that we move forward, with just 7 spots remaining. We’ll add Ebelin Lugo and Mike Stutes for this round.

1. Domonic Brown, OF
2. Jon Singleton, OF
3. Jarred Cosart, RHP
4. Brody Colvin, RHP
5. Trevor May, RHP
6. Sebastian Valle, C
7. Vance Worley, RHP
8. Jesse Biddle, LHP
9. Tyson Gillies, OF
10. Justin De Fratus, RHP
11. Jiwan James, OF
12. Julio Rodriguez, RHP
13. Domingo Santana, OF
14. Aaron Altherr, OF
15. Phillippe Aumont, RHP
16. JC Ramirez, RHP
17. Matt Rizzotti, 1B
18. Jon Pettibone, RHP
19. Austin Hyatt, RHP
20. Cesar Hernandez, 2B
21. Harold Garcia, 2B
22. Kelly Dugan, OF
23. Michael Schwimer, RHP
24.

69 thoughts on “2011 Reader Top 30, #24”

  2. I voted for Galvis who is my #17. After him, I have Alvarez(#21), Collier(#22), Shreve(#26), Stutes(#27), Cisco(#29), and Zeid(#30).

    Like

  3. I’ve been on the Zeid bandwagon since last year when I saw some video of him pitching in the playoffs for Lakewood. Here is another vote. After this I may go Galvis #25, Shreve #26, Castro #27, Stutes #28, Rupp#29, andAlvarez #30

    Like

  4. Galvis again. I don’t really like his chances, but voted for him a couple times because I think his one elite tool is better than anyone elses, so if he adds to that he could be something. I like zeid and rupp too.

    Like

  6. My vote will be for Colby Shreve for all the reasons stated previously. I also like Miguel Alvarez. I think he will again hit over .300 with Lakewood and emerge as an outfield prospect.

    Like

  7. Galvis, again. I think he is being penalized a bit for being in AA at such a young age; had he been in Lakewood or Clearwater with only slightly better offensive stats he’d probably have been picked already. I liked him second to Hyatt, since Santana made the list, but I can’t argue much with any pick. Because of the trade-offs of proximity versus ceiling, I think everyone from #2 to #25 at least, are pretty interchangeable. Schwimer was #23 and could become a closer someday. Galvis has yet to make the list and might end up a future Gold Glover. Last year we selected him 16. His drop is a testament to the depth of the Phillies farm system. Matheison, who can also end up a closer someday, was #10 last year, proved he can stay healthy, yet also hasn’t been selected yet.

    Like

      1. He couldn’t hit against other prospects who are routinely 1-2 years older than him. Domingo Santana didn’t hit last year either because he was young for his league and all he got was a break.

        Like

  11. Handzus, for a moment there I thought you were going deep with “a mathematical constant whose value is the ratio of any circle’s circumference to its diameter in the Euclidean plane.” The value of PI but you just missed. Has anyone been able to create a baseball formula using the value of PI to assist in the ranking of prospects? That would be my ultimate goal.

    I went with Shreve again. I’m nearing the definition of insanity as established by Einstein, “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”

    Like

  14. i dont think galvis is be penalized…when you say that its like we are making to much of the fact that he cant hit or atleast has proven as of yet…its upon the player to prove hes worthy and he has not done it yet

    Like

  16. Galvis can not make the ML on his batting number. Could get every ball ever hit between 2b and 3b and still his bat would kill him.
    My vote is Zeid, who has the best, healthy arm. Would go for Mathieson but the Phillies do not like him for the majors it seems. I think he will be bundled in a trade at some point.

    Like

  17. Not sure I get the Colby Shreve love. Hurt for 2 years, then a average season at age 22 in Low A. I hear the comments about anticipating a big year in his 2nd season following Tommy John, but he hasn’t done it yet. I don’t understand how he gets a pass. Guys can allow for projection from him, but can’t allow for projection from Perci Garner, Kevin Walter, Musser or Mario Hollands.
    I guess they have to get hurt, sit out two years, and pitch a mediocre season at Lakewood, so they can make the top 30 in 2013.

    Like

  18. Galvis. As a prospect, he’s got a huge tool and he’s young for his league, which he will be repeating. Could be he was pushed forward too quickly and his bat would have developed better in A or A+. We’re about to find out if it can develop in AA. If it can, he’s a MLB player in the near future. If not, he’s probably a bench guy at worst, which is better than hoping for a “big 2nd year after TJ”. Garner is next, then Castro, Mathieson, Zeid. After that, Walter, Musser Barnes, Alvarez. Savery is the dark horse for me. Sample size be damned, the guy can swing a bat. We’ll see if others figure out good ways to miss it as 2011 goes along.

    Like

      1. I think this is a new marketing strategy for Galvis. We start a rumor about his MLB tool and his other major tool! I hear he has a hose.

        Like

  20. Galvis.
    Ozzie Smith did not break into the majors until age 23, and did not hit above .260 until age 30, while hitting below .250 in 5 of 7 seasons.
    Galvis hit .238 at age 18 at Lakewood.
    Galvis hit .247 at age 19 at Clearwater.
    Galvis hit .233 at age 20 at Reading. He also had his highest 2B, 3B, HR, RBI, & SB totals. Is it not reasonable to believe that if he remains at Reading for 2 more seasons where he is not yet age appropriate his numbers could climb into the .250-.265 range while developing the necessary small ball skill of bunting most of our major league skill players do not possess. I recall reading that the Phillies for years had him trying to develop switch hitting, but have since abandoned the idea. If he now concentrates on his natural batting position, it could lead to an uptick as well.

    Like

    1. Ozzie Smith isn’t a good comparison if you’re looking at age. Oz went to college, he was drafted and signed as a senior. Once he was actually in organized ball Ozzie only played a single season of Short-Season ball before the Padres made him their opening day starter in 1978. To compare their ages ignores their obviously different career tracks.

      And FWIW, Oz displayed incredible plate discipline. 40 walks to 12 strikeouts in the minors, and in San Diego he still walked more than he struck out.

      Like

    2. This is really getting stupid.

      (1) Look at Ozzie’s one minor league season, and compare it to Galvis.
      (2) Ozzie had decent BB totals from the start (well, decent from the start, increasing to good in year 3.
      (3) Ozzie had speed, stealing a ton of bases at a good %. The speed, of course, separates them in another respect – I don’t have Ozzie’s infield hit totals, but I bet there were plenty – and Galvis doesn’t have the speed to get many infield hits, even if he works on his bunting.
      (4) There is at this point a significant question whether Galvis could even match Ozzie’s .238 for his first 7 seasons. In fact, if I had to guess, absent unusual improvement, I’d say that Galvis would struggle to hit .218. For the 999th time, .233 in AA does not necessarily translate into .233 in the major leagues. The major league equivalencey of his 2010 season is a .192 BA.
      (5) Not a huge issue, but Ozzie also had better contact skills from the start, striking out less often than Galvis by a wide margin.
      (6) Ozzie was the best defensive SS of all times. Galvis is good defensively from all reports but that’s a long way from best ever.

      I mean really. It’s one thing to argue that maybe Galvis’ hitting will develop to the point where he has a shot at a career as a major league regular – as I’ve said before it is a long shot at best, but hey we all like to be optimistic about our prospects – but really – Ozzie Smith?

      Like

    1. I disagree that a 21-year-old in AA can face a “definition” year. While we will certainly have more data, and if he doesn’t improve at the plate at all then it will be a big problem. But he will still be young for his level with the opportunity to improve as most players do in their early 20s.

      Like

  22. This Glavis crap is irritating me. I’m almost tempted to vote for him just so he doesn’t get discussed anymore. There are obviouly two camps here, ones who think glavis’s fielding makes him a MLB player and those like me who think he wouldn’t generate a +.900 OPS in legion ball. If glavis had any other hitting related skills I would agree with his supports, but he doesn’t walk, doesn’t hit for power, strikes out way too much. I honestly can’t understand why people believe in him. ++ Defense is not enough to start, even at short stop. The phillies aren’t the pirates, we expect to contend. And so long as that is the case, Glavis is nothing more then a late inning defensive replacement. Value wise, that CERTAINLY doesn’t belong in the top 30.

    However, I cannot in good concious vote for a player i don’t like, or vote for another player just so glavis doesn’t win. So I take Perci Garner (for the second time). As mentioned previously kid has the realistic (ideal being 1/2) upside to pitch as a 2/3. Lots of raw potential, and outside of the team benching him last season for soreness, i would have voted for him a few spots earlier. You can’t coach 96 mph heat and while his lack of quality mechanics would normally be a health concern, it isn’t here. This kid hasn’t been much of a dedicated baseball player and the miles on his shoulder/elbow are limited to this point. The moving parts will be cut down by the phillies this season and I’m expected big things from him both this year and next.

    Like

      1. Haha, he’d kill it like Matt Bush killed bottles of JD after taking 3.5 million from the Padres… ok that wasn’t tasteful lol

        Like

    2. Hey, I’ve seen Galvis play twice, and one of those times he smacked a game winning homer. So the guy is Babe Ruth, at least he is half of times that I go to see him. All I need to do is go out to watch him play about 40 times a year, and we have Rollins replacement

      Like

  24. Okay, time for me to get on my soap box about relief pitchers.

    Some folks on the blog have been going on and on about how “stupid” some of the posts have been because people are overvaluing relief pitchers and you can’t equate a good relief pitcher with a good starter because the starter pitches so many more innnings and, therefore, he is effective, is worth more.

    I submit to you that, while it is, of course, true that a good starting pitcher is much more valuable than a relief pitcher, I think folks are not thinking about the issue of our relief prospects, and, more generally, relief pitchers, in the right way.

    The most obvious way to think about this is not in terms of replacement value, but, rather, in terms of salary replacement. Put aside what you think a relief pitcher is or should be worth (I’ll discuss that later), the Phillies have to assemble an effective bullpen if they want to win another championship. If they don’t have a minor-league ready player, then they have to pay an experienced pitcher on the open market. Effective non-closers are earning somewhere between $2.5-5 or so, sometimes more, sometimes less. Madson will earn $4.5 million this year, Baez and Contreras – about $2.75. And closers earn a lot more – Lidge is around $12 million. This is all a very long way of saying that, regardless of what you think a relief pitcher’s intrinsic value might be, if you can replace that player with a minor leaguer, you can achieve significant salary savings and that money can then be put to other uses. So, when I hear that Schwimer or Stutes or Mathieson or Zeid are not very valuable, my response is “wait a second, that is not true” – if the player can replace a much more highly compensated player that the team would otherwise need, then the replacement player saves you money and is definitely valuable.

    Now, the second point. I think folks are truly undervaluing bullpens. Typically, a major league team has, I guess, about 6 or 7 guys in the bullpen. To me, at least two of those guys have little intrinsic value – the scrub player who is brought in when the team is far behind (last year, David Herndon) and, for most teams, the LOOGY (not because he’s not helpful, but because he throws so few innings). Most of the important innings are then divided upon among 4 or 5 other guys. Last year, the Phillies bullpen threw 344 innings. That was a very low number. Typically, it’s somewhere in the vicinity of 400 innings. So, overall, you are looking at about the number of innings thrown by approximately 2 starters. Yes, some are throw away innings (the Herndon innings), but just as many (or more) are high leverage innings, where performance is even more tied to wins and losses. If you paid two outstanding starting pitchers – the cost would, on average, be between $30-40 million – but let’s be fair and call it $30 million (excluding what little you pay for the LOOGY and the scrub). As such, assuming you got outstanding performances, it would not at all be crazy to pay $30 million for that service as that is about the pro rated value of what you are paying for your outstanding starters. Moreover, there is a hidden benefit to excellent relief pitching – your starters are less taxed, which means they are more likely to pitch effectively and not get injured. In the middle of last year, Roy Halladay clearly had a lull in his performance due to overuse. It’s just common sense.

    So, when you tell me that I shouldn’t care very much about our fine young group of relief pitchers or value them highly (again, not as highly as a starter or position player, but certainly within our top 30 prospects). Sorry, but I beg to differ. Whether you are looking at the issue from the standpoint of cost savings over replacement players or just intrinsic value, I think a good relief corps can be very valuable which means that, at some level, the component players of that group themselves have value.

    Like

    1. I totally agree that relivers are valuable. And looking at it from a financial perspective is probably a good way to evaluate it. For example. You have 160 million to spend (btw, i still can’t believe the phillies are actually doing this… considering a few short years ago we weren’t remotely this type of franchise), and of that 160, 30 million is for the bullpen. That’s 18.75% of your total budget. So clearly, RP’s have value, which for the most part is in the closer and setup roles as we’ve previously discussed. (12 million for lidge 5 for madson, total over 1/2 of total RP budget in 2 of 6 pitchers). From a financial analysis perspective, this makes these possitions valuable enough to include in our top 30.

      Like

    2. I’m not sure about evaluating a bullpen by salary. I think the Phillies are overpaying, and spending a great deal of money on your team’s bullpen is usually folly. Besides that, we’re in the midst of another major shift in player costs, as evidenced by the contracts given out this offseason. All salaries are exploding, not just relievers

      Two points here to express. One, I don’t decline to grade relievers. I felt Mathieson, De Fratus, Zeid and Aumont were deserving of my personal top 30. I think four relievers out of 30 is reasonable, probably standard for most good systems. I prefer position players and starters who look to provide more value, but I don’t think I grade players unfairly.

      Second, when looking at building a big league bullpen there’s a great deal of turnover that occurs on a year-to-year basis. Good relievers are valuable, but they are frankly not very stable. You may have a great prospect in the bullpen but if he lasts two seasons, of what value is that? (Not passing judgment, an honest question.)

      Like

      1. That’s a fair point Alan, and lasting only 2 years is a tough sell, but given arbitration, wouldn’t a recently brought up minor leaguer generate more years then 2?

        Like

    3. I would agree with this if we can show that the salary RPs receive relative to their output on the field is too high (i.e. RPs are overvalued). If that is the case, then cheap, productive RPs are very valuable to have in your system. One could explore this by looking at $/WAR for RPs compared to other positions. If the $/WAR for RPs is much higher than other positions, I can agree with Catch’s post.

      Still, I think most prospect analysis is done by looking at what a player could do on the field and does not rank a player by the monetary value he provides.

      Like

      1. “If the $/WAR for RPs is much higher than other positions, I can agree with Catch’s post.” I believe that it is, but that’s only part of my point.

        One of my other points is that the bullpen pitches about as many innings as two starters – so, theoretically, it makes sense to allocate the type of funds to a bullpen as you would to two (maybe one and two-thirds) starters.

        As for relievers not being consistent. Much of that has to do with a small sample size. Relievers appear in many games, but do not pitch a lot of innings. A couple of bad outings can really screw up a relief pitcher’s statistics. However, when you have about 5 players sharing the innings, presumably, the odds are that, on the whole, if you get good players, you will get what you paid for. Some will have off seasons, but others should generally make up for it.

        On the whole, I think the issue is not that it’s not worthwhile to pay for quality relievers, but that teams are notoriously bad at managing their relief pitchers and their contracts from year to year. And I think the reason for this is that team probably are forced to overpay for closers and top-notch set-up men and then (understandably) do not want to dedicate the resources to pay the middle relievers (no less the mop up men who, frankly, have very little value). You, therefore, often get a hot shot closer, maybe a good set-up man and a bunch of thrown together garbage.

        Like

  25. Since I conclusively proved in yesterday’s screed that Galvis could, indeed, gain a starting position in MLB if he could simply reproduce his AA numbers at MLB level, I won’t get into that. Some will say the comparables listed were much better minor league hitters, so what? Nobody gets paid for minor league numbers and nobody is considered for HOF off of minor league numbers, so they are but training exercises. The point is if Galvis can only improve enough to have the numbers offset by the rise in level, he can equal the numbers of those who have reached starter status in MLB, and that was just looking at the most recent year, over the years many better examples would reveal themselves, that is certain.
    Given starter status , that brings up the issue what is important in winning games. Though many claim to have installed secret formulas which determine the value of certain stats toward wins. They are off, here is the real formula: without adequate defense at SS , there are zero wins, or to simplify no adequate defense at SS= -162. Book it. Therefore , to build team that can win at all, the best defense at SS would be an essential building block , perhaps right after Pitcher and Catcher.
    Even considering the non-acceptance of starting quality, it raises the issue of what is important or essential to the MLB bench. Lack of an adequate defensive option off the bench can result in the immediate loss of a game. Lack of a pinch-hitter can not. Lack of good defense at C, can result in immediate loss of game, lack of pinch-hitter can not. Same goes for defense at CF or a bench player adequate in Corner OF so a starter can slide over. So, for the MLB bench , lack of adequate defense at MI, C, and CF can result in the immediate loss of game, and lack of a pinch hitter can not. (And don’t give me that a trailing team needs pinch hitter in bottom of 9th or later, because that state would not be reached without the defense giving the visitors the lead). So the priorities for bench are defensively adequate MI, C, and CF which are necessities, and then Corner IF and OF who can get pinch hits are luxuries.
    Of course, batting skills to go with the defensive prowess is desirable, but, for the bench players at essential positions, the defensive capabilities are a necessity and the batting skills are a luxury.

    Like

    1. “Since I conclusively proved in yesterday’s screed that Galvis could, indeed, gain a starting position in MLB ….”

      Oh, man, you CAN’T be for real. Please. That comment from yesterday was destroyed by multiple other posters, myself included.

      Now, in THIS comment you seem to be (wisely) shifting your position to arguing that he will likely be a decent major league reserve. And you have a case there, even if I think it is still exaggerated. But thankfully the Phillies’ minor league system is deep enough that potential middle infield reserves don’t belong int he top 25, and probably not in the top 30.

      Like

    2. In these days of a short bench, managers and GMs have increasingly turned away from specialization. You no longer see pure pinch hitters, pure pinch runners, defensive specialists, etc. Managers prefer having a utility infielder who can at least handle the bat a bit. You claim Galvis merely needs to reproduce his AA numbers in MLB. The only SS to replicate Galvis’ numbers and have any type of career in recent memory is Juan Castro. And he’s frankly not a player I’d be excited to have on my team.

      Like

    3. I give Glavis a 50/50 shot at being a late inning defense replacement, but i still don’t see utility infielder as likely, as mentioned above, teams prefer a multi-talented player, not someone with just 1 skill. To me, glavis gets a ranking between 30 and 35. If he somehow dramatically improves his hitting/walking/power/steals skills I would upgrade him to 25 or even better, but he’s had years to prove he had those skill and has failed miserably to do so.

      Like

    4. I actually think Marfis has a point w/r/t reserves. Sure you need “multi-talented” reserves, but a middle infielder who can play a little defense AND hit … is going to be a regular.

      Two more points on the substance. First, recall everybody’s whipping boy from 2009, Eric Bruntlett? OPS in the minors was over 100 points higher than Galvis’. Just sayin’.

      More substantively – of COURSE it’s crazy to say that offense doesn’t matter for a SS. Just as silly as saying that, in looking at a family budget, only spending and not income is relevant. The SENSIBLE version of the argument is that at some positions defense is more important (relative to offense) than it is at other positions, which of course is true. But that’s why (for example) Brendan Ryan has a job. If he hits in 2011 like he hit in 2010, he won’t have a job (as a regular, anyway) in 2012, and if he had hit that way as a rookie he probably wouldn’t have been a regular as a sophomore. And it remains to be seen if Galvis can hit even THAT well in the majors.

      Like

    5. What did you prove?
      You proved that Galvis is developing at a pace to be a MUCH worse major league hitter than Jack Wilson, Alcides Escobar, Cesar Izturis and most all of the “no hit, all glove” shortstops… and that is your selling point?

      You can’t find a SS above the level of Juan Castro or Wilson Valdez (minimum salary castoffs), that hit as bad as Galvis in the minors, yet that history somehow brings you to the conclusion that he will miraculously begin to hit as well as the current major league regulars. Insane.

      Like

  26. actually has to be castro.. he should be higher than:
    pettibone
    schwimmer
    rizzotti
    aumont
    hyatt

    obviously this is “our rankings” but phuturephillies in his top 30 end of season review said he was leaning towards top 10 for castro.

    we’re allowed to disagree.. but i think he has more upside than many of those ahead of him

    Like

    1. actually dont want to misquote him.. he said ” I mentioned it a few weeks ago, but I’m going to give Castro consideration for the top 10 on my 2011 list. I may end up dropping him a few spots outside the top 10, but he certainly didn’t do anything to hurt his stock this season. I think I did well slotting him at 19.”

      Like

    3. Castro, a player I completely forgot about, he’ll get my next vote. Kid has a short compact build, plus speed, average power (say 15-20 HR potential as he fills out) looked great in williamsport in 2009 but has struggled in lakewood, alibet an improvement from 09′ to 10′. Kids got potential though and as many have reported, plays the game the right way and has a good makeup. I think next year will be a big year for him. I wonder if the phillies will keep in lakewood or bump him to clearwater….

      Like

  27. There are two things in play here and I think we are mixing the two up. First, to rank our prospects I agree in looking at statistics, hearing what scouts say, age, level, etc. But second, we tend to take what’s happened in the past and make (sometimes) outrageously strong statements about a guy never having a chance. I totally get the pessimism on Galvis at this point offensively and agree that he is unlikely to be a starting SS in the majors. Having said that, there are many guys who find “it” one year and become completely different players. Sometimes its mechanics, sometimes its mental, etc but it is short sighted to automatically assume a guy like Galvis will never make it, you never know.

    Like

  28. Mike77 asks how one can vote for Shreve. Since I voted for Shreve, I’ll explain. Yes, he has been out for 2 seasons with TJ. He didn’t get hurt post-draft, the Phillies were aware of his condition pre-draft and thought enough of his big arm to give him a big bonus, even though injured. TJ is an injury most pitchers now come back from, although it often takes a second season. In evaluating Shreve I look at both his skills and performance pre-injury and his performance in 2010, compared to what I expected in his first season. Firstly, he pitched over 100 innings and is apparentlyhealthy. Second, he started in full-season low-A rather than short-season so he was facing hitters with a lot more pro experience than he has. Third, he held opposing hitters to a .234 batting average — better than Colvin (.258) and not far off Cosart (.224). He’s got about 2.5 walks/9 which isn’t bad. What stands out to the bad side are too many HR and the K rate, which at 6.25 is quite low. That is what we’ll need to watch in 2011..

    Like

    1. Allentown, that is a very reasonable position on Shreve.
      My questioning of his support this round was more rhetorical than anything.
      The #24 slot is not an unreasonable spot for him in the poll. But to justify that position, it takes almost all projection, because he has not achieved top 30 stats. Many are basing their opinion on him, based on his pedigree and bonus, as proof of his prospect status (I have no problem with that at all). What is so confusing is I have been reading so many say they don’t consider Garner, Walter, or Pointer prospects, because they haven’t shown anything. Shreve’s stats don’t show anything special. It’s all projection. The draftees and short season guys should get the same consideration as Shreve. That was my point.

      Like

      1. I think you misunderstood what I wrote on another thread, I think #23. I consider all of those guys prospects, I just choose not to consider them among this year’s top 30 since they basically have yet to play as pros. It is analogous to my other ground rule to self, that I won’t consider Bastardo or Mathieson, since they are not ROY eligible any more. You have to set reasonable bounds to whom you will and won’t consider for the top 30. Of course I consider Musser, Walter, Pointer, Garner to be solid prospects and candidates for my 2012 top 30. I will include Rupp and did already list Biddle in my 2011 top 30, since they have significant playing time this season.

        Like

  29. My guy got 5 votes this round yippee. Enjoying the banter but can’t help wonder if any of these guys left (that have more than a full season at least in Lakewood have impact potential?)

    Since my answer is no I’m opting to fill out my top30 with unquantified unknowns.

    Like

  30. Shreve… again.

    I expect to see a significant uptick in his k/9 totals this year as he continues to get his stuff back.

    Pettibone went 18 and Shreve actually had a better k/9 rate, a better whip and better BB/9 at the same level against the same competition. Shreve is older, but I feel like that isn’t all that relevant considering the time that he has missed.

    Like

  31. I have 15 guys ranked pretty evenly at this point. I voted for Shreve because I think he has a chance to be a very good pitcher if his arm comes back a little more this season. I could just as easily voted for 14 other guys. I really think they’re all very close at this point and all show promise with concerns. I like Castro and Zeid after this but I’m very intrigued with last year’s draft choices as well. Garner, Eldmire, Walter, Musser, Pointer and Rupp are very interesting to me. Plus, I still have high hopes for Collier and I hear Nick Hernandez is feeling great and ready to go and I like what he did last year when healthy. theze are all good choices to me. I’m not as high on Galvis. Sorry, forget the hype, he’s not Ozzie in the field. He’s major league good but he’s not Ozzie…

    Like

  32. Zeid, Zeid, Zeid!! He has more potential than anybody else on the list and has been a consistent winner whether a starter or reliever with great numbers–I cannot wait to see him in Reading or Lehigh Valley this year.

    Like

  33. Just saw on Phillies Nation that Ryan Howard is already in Clearwater and is working out with Dom Brown and Anthony Hewitt

    Like

  37. And on cue, at 8:00pm, the ballot box suddenly gets stuffed for the 2nd place name. I smell voter fraud.

    Like

Comments are closed.