There is no arguement, you just made my point even more when you added Drew and Quentin and Weaver and Kendrick and Morales for the D'backs and Angels. They are not prospects at all. So hey lets add BJ Upton and Kazmir for the d'rays if your adding non prospects.
If those 5 were prospects sure it would be an arguement but there not.
The Dodgers system is not nearly as good.
And please the Royals, they have no depth at all.
It's also fitting how you left Guzman, Hellickson, Talbot, and Walker for the Rays who are all very good prospects.
D. Young>B. Wood
E. Longoria>N. Adenhart
R. Brignac>E. Aybar
E. Dukes>S. Rodriguez
J. Niemann>J. Mathis (although Mathis is becoming underrated by people who rank prospects)
J. McGee>J. Arredondo
W. Davis>H. Conger
J. Hellickson>any other Angel prospect
Again thats not even bringing up Guzman, Talbot, and Walker.
Prospect (pra spekt) - noun Something expected; a possibility.
To be eligible for this, a player must meet the playing-time qualifications for the Rookie of the Year award, but not the service-time qualifications. That means a prospect has to have a total of fewer than 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the majors.
Now I know this is a crazy thing to comprehend, but this isn't my definition I go by the rules. The rules say Young is and Morales isn't. And of course it would change if Delmon wasn't considered a prospect, then it would actually be very close. But the Devil Rays still have a ton of depth in there system.
FalcoAtL wrote:There is no need to be rude about this... Obviously I know what a prospect is. I'm not the only one that feels that Delmon is no longer a prospect. Sickels does not have him on his Drays rankings.
Point well taken about prospects graduating. I just think there are other systems that are almost as deep. To say that TB is clearly the best system and there is no argument for anything else is wrong, IMO.
Major League Manager
Joined: 7 May 2004
Bases this season: 0
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Finally back home. A sweet 15 mi from Miller Park.