E-mail: oconnor@northjersey.com

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof08/news/story?id=3186626


NEW YORK -- Rich "Goose" Gossage became only the fifth relief pitcher elected to the Hall of Fame, earning baseball's highest honor Tuesday on his ninth try on the ballot.

Gossage was listed on 466 ballots, or 85.8 percent, to qualify for enshrinement in his ninth year on the ballot.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/

Link Posted by David Lefort, Boston.com Staff January 8, 2008 01:59 PM

Former Red Sox outfielder Jim Rice was passed over for the Hall of Fame yet again, getting 392 votes (72.2 percent), up from 346 (63.5 percent) last year and 16 short of the 75 percent needed. He will appear on the writers' ballot for the 15th and final time next year, when career steals leader Rickey Henderson will be among the newcomers.

Goose Gossage was the only player to gain election, becoming only the fifth relief pitcher to do so on his ninth try on the ballot.

Finally Goose gets in
marlins226 Post #1: 2:02 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 8819
Congratulations to the Goose.
ImSmartherThanYou Post #2: 2:04 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 3675
The HOF website has both Gossage and Rice pictured, though there is no official confirmation.
lacaprup Post #3: 2:05 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 2517
Rice missed by 14 votes. Thank you voters for not screwing the HoF with another Kirby Pucket.
AsFanEst1980 Post #4: 2:05 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 3264


The HOF website has both Gossage and Rice pictured, though there is no official confirmation.


KNBR said rice was 14 votes short.
ImSmartherThanYou Post #5: 2:06 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 3675


Rice missed by 14 votes. Thank you voters for not screwing the HoF with another Kirby Pucket.



Another Kirby Puckett?
EC_Bias Post #6: 2:10 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 2637


Rice missed by 14 votes. Thank you voters for not screwing the HoF with another Kirby Pucket.



Another Kirby Puckett?


I'm guessing less deserving candidate...
lacaprup Post #7: 2:10 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 2517


Rice missed by 14 votes. Thank you voters for not screwing the HoF with another Kirby Pucket.



Another Kirby Puckett?


I'm guessing less deserving candidate...


right on
ImSmartherThanYou Post #8: 2:10 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 3675


Rice missed by 14 votes. Thank you voters for not screwing the HoF with another Kirby Pucket.



Another Kirby Puckett?


I'm guessing less deserving candidate...



How is Puckett not deserving?
jpop13 Post #9: 2:12 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 3536


Rice missed by 14 votes. Thank you voters for not screwing the HoF with another Kirby Pucket.



Another Kirby Puckett?


I'm guessing less deserving candidate...



How is Puckett not deserving?



Puckett had to retire early. The man is a hall of famer any day for me.
EC_Bias Post #10: 2:13 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 2637


Rice missed by 14 votes. Thank you voters for not screwing the HoF with another Kirby Pucket.



Another Kirby Puckett?


I'm guessing less deserving candidate...



How is Puckett not deserving?


I was responding to the inference from "lacarup" but personally, i beleive KP is a borderline HOFer who i don't have a problem being in, but it wouldn't kill me if he were excluded.

I don't think Jim Rice is another Puckett though, i don't beleive he belongs.
ImSmartherThanYou Post #11: 2:17 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 3675


Rice missed by 14 votes. Thank you voters for not screwing the HoF with another Kirby Pucket.



Another Kirby Puckett?


I'm guessing less deserving candidate...



How is Puckett not deserving?


I was responding to the inference from "lacarup" but personally, i beleive KP is a borderline HOFer who i don't have a problem being in, but it wouldn't kill me if he were excluded.

I don't think Jim Rice is another Puckett though, i don't beleive he belongs.


I pity anyone who doesn't think Puckett belongs just because his career only lasted 12 years and because he didn't reach the fabled milestones. The HOF is about so much more than milestones. Excluding Puckett is slap in the face to the late 80s and early 90s.
EC_Bias Post #12: 2:20 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 2637


Rice missed by 14 votes. Thank you voters for not screwing the HoF with another Kirby Pucket.



Another Kirby Puckett?


I'm guessing less deserving candidate...



How is Puckett not deserving?


I was responding to the inference from "lacarup" but personally, i beleive KP is a borderline HOFer who i don't have a problem being in, but it wouldn't kill me if he were excluded.

I don't think Jim Rice is another Puckett though, i don't beleive he belongs.


I pity anyone who doesn't think Puckett belongs just because his career only lasted 12 years and because he didn't reach the fabled milestones. The HOF is about so much more than milestones. Excluding Puckett is slap in the face to the late 80s and early 90s.


I didn't say he doesn't belong, i did say it wouldn't be the end of the world if he was excluded though.
lacaprup Post #13: 2:23 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 2517


Rice missed by 14 votes. Thank you voters for not screwing the HoF with another Kirby Pucket.



Another Kirby Puckett?


I'm guessing less deserving candidate...



How is Puckett not deserving?


I was responding to the inference from "lacarup" but personally, i beleive KP is a borderline HOFer who i don't have a problem being in, but it wouldn't kill me if he were excluded.

I don't think Jim Rice is another Puckett though, i don't beleive he belongs.


I pity anyone who doesn't think Puckett belongs just because his career only lasted 12 years and because he didn't reach the fabled milestones. The HOF is about so much more than milestones. Excluding Puckett is slap in the face to the late 80s and early 90s.



It's the hall of FAME, not the hall of very good. By your logic, Don Mattingly should be in too. So should every other good player cut down by health. Sorry, having an enduring career is one of the things that makes you a HoFer. Only the very best of all time should get into the HoF with careers that are cut in half. Think Bobby Orr in the hockey HoF.
NYGaGJob10 Post #14: 2:30 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 492
It basically the Hall of the very good once they let Tony Perez in.

If Perez can be voted in so can Rice and Dawson.
DragonfromTO Post #15: 2:31 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 8633


It basically the Hall of the very good once they let Tony Perez in.

If Perez can be voted in so can Rice and Dawson.



Why would you argue to further compound the effects of a bad selection?
lacaprup Post #16: 2:33 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 2517


It basically the Hall of the very good once they let Tony Perez in.

If Perez can be voted in so can Rice and Dawson.



Why would you argue to further compound the effects of a bad selection?



Thank you, totally correct.
ImSmartherThanYou Post #17: 2:34 pm Quote | Report Violation
Total Posts: 3675


Rice missed by 14 votes. Thank you voters for not screwing the HoF with another Kirby Pucket.



Another Kirby Puckett?


I'm guessing less deserving candidate...



How is Puckett not deserving?


I was responding to the inference from "lacarup" but personally, i beleive KP is a borderline HOFer who i don't have a problem being in, but it wouldn't kill me if he were excluded.

I don't think Jim Rice is another Puckett though, i don't beleive he belongs.


I pity anyone who doesn't think Puckett belongs just because his career only lasted 12 years and because he didn't reach the fabled milestones. The HOF is about so much more than milestones. Excluding Puckett is slap in the face to the late 80s and early 90s.


I didn't say he doesn't belong, i did say it wouldn't be the end of the world if he was excluded though.


I know, I was simply commenting on anyone who steadfastly feels he's not worthy.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/08/SPV8UAM18.DTL

Once again, Roger Clemens became a part-time pitcher. He's throwing only to a No. 8 hitter now, filing a defamation lawsuit against his apparently destitute former personal trainer, Brian McNamee, and skipping past the corporate sluggers who commissioned the Mitchell Report and the former U.S. Senator who produced it.

Maybe the suit, filed late Sunday in Houston, is just a warm-up act. The Rocket's lawyers still may be drawing up the papers to go after Major League Baseball and George Mitchell, plus the many media outlets that have taken McNamee at his word. The trainer, after all, isn't the one who told the whole world that Clemens had used performance-enhancing drugs. He told Mitchell, who passed it on to the media as near-gospel, and it was received accordingly.

The bet here is that the McNamee suit is simply a shut-up act - heavy emphasis on the word "act." Clemens has put on a great show of righteous indignation the last few days, defending his honor in front of Mike Wallace, filing the lawsuit, then holding a news conference and playing a tape-recorded phone call that sounded something like a cowboy version of Linda Tripp's gabfest with Monica Lewinsky.

Barry Bonds could not get away with this type of brinksmanship, because his accusers have too much evidence to support their suspicions. There's a paper trail, apparently detailing a drug regimen and monogrammed with "B.B.," leading from his personal trainer's house. There's a chatty ex-girlfriend. There's even, according to the federal government, a positive drug test.

Clemens knows he is working with a net. Earl Ward, McNamee's attorney, said in a phone interview over the weekend that similar documentation about Clemens does not exist. Federal agents connected McNamee to doping because he wrote checks to Kirk Radomski, the now-confessed dealer who worked in the Mets' clubhouse, not through any recorded exchanges between him and athletes.

So the net is tightly woven - for now. But every time the Rocket speaks, he pokes another hole in it. He accepted an invitation to speak at a Congressional hearing with a certain swagger.

"I am going to Congress, and I am going to tell the truth," he said after a bizarre moment Monday, when his lawyer tried to answer the question at hand and then Clemens asked for it to be repeated because he said he hadn't been listening.

The Rocket seemed unconcerned that there might be booby traps waiting for him on Capitol Hill, where he has to repeat his denials under oath and risk a perjury rap if anyone ever finds hard evidence that he lied. It took almost four years for the feds to get what they needed to squeeze a guilty plea out of Marion Jones and to indict Bonds. If Clemens is lying, it could take more time and a lot more creativity.

In the audiotape from Friday's phone call between Clemens and his former trainer, McNamee said that he was worried that someone might be monitoring their conversation. He was right. Clemens was recording the call. But there were other possibilities, including a wiretap by the feds.

Neither of them said anything definitive on the tape. They verbally fenced with each other. McNamee kept asking what Clemens wanted from him, and the Rocket never came out and said: "You know you lied to Mitchell. You need to tell the truth and clear my name." McNamee, meanwhile, never said: "I've told the truth, and you know it."

Clemens' lawyer has said that his client's legacy rests on his ability to convince people that he is more forthright and believable than McNamee. Problem is, Clemens is coming across as a knockoff of Jones, who sued Victor Conte for defamation when he told a TV audience about providing her drugs. Clemens has her anger, passion, defiance - everything except her sentencing date.

In truth, Jones was better. The Rocket has sounded like a fool several times in the last few days. He said he didn't accept McNamee's offer to come to Texas for the news conference because his family is so mad that McNamee might not be safe. He told Wallace that if he had used the drugs described in the Mitchell Report, "I should have a third ear coming out of my forehead."

Hmm, then why does Jose Canseco look merely sleazy, and not deformed?

A day later, Clemens said steroids don't help athletes do anything but look good in a suit. Apparently, a third ear isn't all that unflattering.

Clemens prefers minimalism in his suits. So he didn't stuff any big names into the one he filed Sunday.

E-mail Gwen Knapp at gknapp@sfchronicle.com.

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3186673&name=Neyer_Rob

posted: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
filed under: MLB

Hall of Fame balloting does not exist in a vacuum.

Now that Rich Gossage is in, more people will wonder about Lee Smith.

Lee Smith did save 168 more games than Gossage. But a lot of guys saved more games than Gossage, who's just 17th on the all-time list. What sets Goose apart is not his 310 saves (roughly the same as Tom Henke and Jeff Montgomery), but rather his 1,809 innings, an immense number of innings for a relief pitcher. Innings, outs, have value. By way of comparison, Bruce Sutter -- who somehow was elected to the Hall before Gossage -- barely pitched 1,000 innings. And those were good innings that Gossage pitched, valuable innings. Even as he was padding his career stats in his late 30s and early 40s, Gossage still was effective.

Gossage was a truly great reliever for roughly 10 years, and a good one for another decade or so. If Sutter and Dennis Eckersley are in the Hall, Gossage belongs there, too. But he should be the last of his contemporaries. There's not room for Lee Smith or Jeff Reardon. Not John Franco, either. Reliever-wise, we just have to wait a few years for the best of the next generation.

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=neyer_rob



posted: Monday, January 7, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry
filed under: MLB

Spoiler alert: If you don't want to know the results of the Hall of Fame balloting, stop reading immediately.

No, not really. I want you to keep reading. Really, there's still plenty of suspense even after consulting Keith Law's survey of 120 Hall of Fame voters. Here are the only four candidates drawing more than 50 percent (75 percent needed for election):

Player Votes Pct.
Goose Gossage 108 90 percent
Jim Rice 82 68 percent
Bert Blyleven 79 66 percent
Andre Dawson 79 66 percent

Keith concludes:

1. Goose Gossage will be elected to the Hall of Fame this year. He will be the only candidate elected.

2. If there are two players elected, the second one will be Jim Rice. However, it's more likely that he will be elected in 2009 as he gains sympathy votes for his final year on the ballot.

3. Of the other players on this ballot, [Bert] Blyleven, [Andre] Dawson, and [Tim] Raines will all eventually earn induction, but no one else will.

Addressing those in order:

1. Agreed. I do not believe he'll get 90 percent, or even close to that. I believe Keith's survey generally has picked up the ballots of (relatively) younger voters, and it's the (really) older voters who typically won't vote for a relief pitcher. But once they put in Bruce Sutter, who's demonstrably inferior to Gossage, the latter's election became assured.

2. This -- if anybody joins Gossage, it'll be Rice -- certainly doesn't follow from Keith's survey, as only three votes separate Rice from the other guys. But I do agree that Rice is No. 1 among those three, as last year he outpointed Dawson by 37 votes and Blyleven by 86.

2a. If Rice doesn't make it this year, will he receive enough sympathy votes next year? Well, of course, it depends on how many he needs. Superficially, at least, Rice is comparable to Ralph Kiner, a top power hitter for a number of seasons before flaming out early. In 1960, Kiner's first year of Hall of Fame eligibility, he got three votes.

That's right: three.

By 1974, Kiner's penultimate year of consideration (by the BBWAA), he was doing quite a bit better: 215 votes, which still left him 59 votes short of election. But Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford were on the ballot that year, and stole everyone's thunder. There were a great number of future Hall of Famers on that ballot -- including all-timers Eddie Mathews and Duke Snider, who both managed to draw support from only 30 percent of the voters -- and Mantle and Ford were the only two elected.

In 1975, whether due to sympathy or something else, Kiner picked up 58 votes, which put him just over the 75 percent threshold. If Rice doesn't make it this year, will he pick up 58 votes next year? I don't think so, as between now and then we'll only see more analysis like this. I do think he'll be elected, though. If not next year, then another year.

3. I'm not at all sure about Dawson and Raines. Dawson's not a great candidate, and Law's survey has Raines pulling only 35 percent support. I think he'll actually do worse than that this year because Keith's missing the older voters (who certainly won't vote for the guy with the great on-base percentage). Due to pages like this, Raines will only do better as the years progress, but I have absolutely no confidence that he'll move from 35 to 75 percent in 15 years

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/265412.html




By Jim Callis
January 8, 2008
E-mail Print

Has it really been five weeks since the last Ask BA? I'll blame the 2008 Prospect Handbook, though the good news is that we should be getting the book back from the printer in the next couple of weeks.

That last Ask BA dealt mainly with the ramifications of trades that involved prospects, and this edition will as well. But one question I didn't get asked that I want to address is my take the two Athletics deals, which sent Dan Haren to the Diamondbacks and Nick Swisher to the White Sox.

Both Haren and Swisher are young and productive, and they're signed to easily affordable long-term contracts that lock them up for at least the next three seasons. In short, they're exactly the type of cornerstones a rebuilding club would want to rebuild around. But Oakland's farm system had fallen into such a state of disrepair that the A's decided they had to shed Haren and Swisher to bring in some minor league talent for the future.

Billy Beane has proven himself to be one of the game's best general managers, but how he escapes blame for the collapse of his farm system is beyond me. Yes, big league promotions have thinned out Oakland's store of minor league talent, but with 19 first-round or supplemental first-round picks in the last six drafts, there's no excuse. Funny, I seem to remember reading a book a few years ago about how the A's were revolutionizing the draft.

Secondly, there's no guarantee that prospects will pan out. I love prospects as much as the next guy, but unless the three best pitchers Oakland acquired (Brett Anderson from the Diamondbacks, Gio Gonzalez and Fautino de los Santos) all pan out, I don't think the trades will significantly upgrade the A's in the long run. And we all know what injuries and attrition can do to pitching prospects.

In other business, only two 2008 first-round picks will change hands as free-agent compensation, because the last remaining Type A player (Aaron Rowand) signed with a team whose first-rounder was protected (the Giants). The draft order is fairly well set, though six Type B free agents who could yield supplemental first-round choices remain on the market.

Here's how the order stands now:

First-Round Picks
1. Devil Rays
2. Pirates
3. Royals
4. Orioles
5. Giants
6. Marlins
7. Reds
8. White Sox
9. Nationals
10. Astros
11. Rangers
12. Athletics
13. Cardinals
14. Twins
15. Dodgers
16. Brewers
17. Blue Jays
18. Mets (Tom Glavine, A, to Atl)
19. Cubs
20. Mariners
21. Tigers
22. Mets
23. Padres
24. Phillies
25. Rockies
26. Diamondbacks
27. Twins (Torii Hunter, A, to LAA)
28. Yankees
29. Indians
30. Red Sox
Supplemental First-Round Picks
31. Twins (Hunter)
32. Brewers (Franciso Cordero, A, to Cin)
33. Mets (Glavine)
34. Phillies (Aaron Rowand, A to SF)
35. Brewers (Scott Linebrink, A, to CWS)
36. Royals (David Riske, B, to KC)
37. Cardinals (Troy Percival, B, to TB)
38. Braves (Ron Mahay, B, to KC)
39. Cubs (Jason Kendall, B, to Mil)
40. Padres (Doug Brocail, B, to Hou)
41. Yankees (Luis Vizcaino, B, to Col)
42. Red Sox (Eric Gagne, B, to Mil)
Second-Round Changes
47. Phillies (Rowand to SF)
49. Brewers (Cordero to Cin)
50. Brewers (Linebrink to CWS)
69a. Braves (for failure to sign 2007 second-rounder Joshua Fields)
Third-Round Changes
84a. Red Sox (for failure to sign 2007 second-rounder Hunter Morris)
Supplemental Third-Round Picks
105. Phillies (for failure to sign 2007 third-rounder Brandon Workman)
106. Astros (for failure to sign 2007 third-rounder Derek Dietrich)
107. Padres (for failure to sign 2007 third-rounder Tommy Toledo)
108. Angels (for failure to sign 2007 third-rounder Matt Harvey)
Remaining Possible Compensation Free Agents
Ari: Livan Hernandez (B).
Hou: RHP Trever Miller (B).
Oak: C Mike Piazza (B), OF Shannon Stewart (B).
SD: OF Mike Cameron (B).
SF: 3B Pedro Feliz (B).

Now that several of the Diamondbacks' best prospects have been traded, what would their Top 10 list look like now?

Bob Berzin
Gurnee, Ill.

To get Dan Haren from the Athletics, the Diamondbacks parted with five of their top prospects: outfielder Carlos Gonzalez (No. 1 on our list), lefthander Brett Anderson (No. 3), outfielder Aaron Cunningham (No. 7), first baseman Chris Carter (No. and lefty Greg Smith (No. 13). Factor in all the talent Arizona promoted to the majors last season, and 13 of its top 15 prospects from a year ago either no longer qualify for the list or have left the organization.

A year ago, we rated the Diamondbacks system as the third-best in the game. With all the changes, it will sit somewhere around No. 20 when we release our updated rankings in the spring.

Here's what the Top 10 would look like now:

1. Jarrod Parker, rhp
Had the most electric arm in the 2007 draft.
2. Max Scherzer, rhp
Has a violent delivery, but also throws in the mid-90s.
3. Gerardo Parra, of
Won the low Class A Midwest League batting title with a .320 average.
4. Billy Buckner, rhp
Acquired from the Royals in shrewd trade for Alberto Callaspo.
5. Juan Gutierrez, rhp
Sinker/changeup pitcher was part of the Jose Valverde deal with the Astros.
6. Emilio Bonifacio, 2b/ss
Stands out for his speed, middle-infield defense.
7. Reynaldo Navarro, ss
Third-round pick last June is a slick defender.
8. Barry Enright, rhp
One of the top command pitchers in college last spring.
9. Wes Roemer, rhp
See Enright.
10. Brooks Brown, rhp
Has the body, stuff to be a workhorse starter.

With the Cubs signing Kosuke Fukudome, does he become their No. 1 prospect? And does this now make it more likely that Chicago will trade either Felix Pie or Tyler Colvin, perhaps in a multiplayer blockbuster with the Orioles?

Tim Worrall
Napoleon, Ohio

Though it's unfair to compare American minor leaguers with older imports, where would Kosuke Fukudome fit on the Cubs Top 10 and the overall Top 100 Prospects list?

Penny Simone
Bellwood, Ill.

Where does Kosuke Fukudome now rank amongst Cubs prospects? I would be inclined to rate him ahead of Josh Vitters at No. 1. And did he sign in time to make it into the 2008 Prospect Handbook? If so, who got knocked out from No. 30 to No. 31?

Navin Dore
Pasadena, Calif.

Where would Kosuke Fukudome rank on the Cubs Top 10? I assume No. 2 behind only Josh Vitters. Also, where would you rank him among all the prospects in baseball?

Rob Dorsey
Silver Spring, Md.

Lots of fans have Fukudome on their mind. It's kind of silly to consider an established Japanese big leaguer a "prospect", but our definition of a prospect closely mirrors MLB's definition of a rookie, and it is what it is.

Fukudome signed just after our transaction deadline for the Prospect Handbook, so he didn't make our Cubs list there. We did, however, including him in an appendix along with fellow Japanese signees Kaz Fukumori (Rangers) and Hiroki Kuroda (Dodgers). Here's our scouting report on the 30-year-old Fukudome:

The departures of Ichiro Suzuki and Hideki Matsui meant that Fukudome was the best all-around player remaining in Japan. While he doesn't have the same power as Matsui, he's a comparable player and has better all-around tools. The 2006 Central League MVP and two-time batting champ has a strong arm and runs well enough to play center field in a pinch, though he profiles best as a right fielder who hits for average, draws walks and occasionally drives the ball out of the park with a smooth lefthanded swing. The Cubs will play him in right and bat him near the top of the order, perhaps even in the leadoff spot.

The biggest concern about Fukudome is his durability. He missed the second half of the 2007 season with bone chips in his throwing elbow and has been bothered by other minor injuries in recent years. Fukudome played third base as a teenager on Japan's silver-medal winning 1996 Olympic team before taking his speed to the outfield. He has plenty of experience on the international stage. He also played for Japan's 2004 Olympic team and was one of the stars of Japan's World Baseball Classic squad, hitting a pinch-hit, two-run home run in the semifinals against Korea and a key two-run single against Cuba in the championship game.





Had Fukudome signed in time to make our Cubs list, I would have ranked him No. 1 ahead of Josh Vitters. I think Vitters, the third overall pick in the 2007 draft, has a higher ceiling but Fukudome has starred at the highest level of baseball outside of Major League Baseball. I think he's a near lock to be a solid regular for the Cubs, though I don't see him becoming a star, reiterating the Hideki Matsui comp from our scouting report. Combining his ceiling and his likelihood of reaching it, I'll probably put Fukudome in the 21-30 range on my personal Top 100 list.

His arrival has to make Colvin or Pie expendable, because with Fukudome and Alfonso Soriano signed for another 11 years and $167 million between them, there's only one outfield opening available. It's also possible that if Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez remain productive and in Chicago, Vitters could head to the outfield as well. Sam Fuld's stock is soaring after a strong Arizona Fall League performance, so he gives the Cubs another outfield option (though I view him as more of a fourth outfielder than a regular).

One last thing: While Fukudome didn't push anyone out of our Cubs Top 30 in the Handbook, Chicago did acquire righthanders Jose Ascanio and Tim Lahey in December. That knocked outfielder Josh Kroeger and third baseman Kyle Reynolds out of the book, though we'll present their scouting reports in our annual online look at what we call The 31st Team—all the reports that didn't quite make it into the Handbook.

Is it fair to assume that Edinson Volquez (if he still qualified as a prospect) wouldn't have been ranked among the Reds' Big Four prospects (Jay Bruce, Homer Bailey, Joey Votto, Johnny Cueto) but ahead of Drew Stubbs? Would Volquez be a viable candidate for the Top 100 Prospects list?

Erick Metzger
Columbus, Ohio

Volquez has exceeded 50 major league innings, so he's no longer a prospect in our book. He definitely wouldn't have ranked ahead of Bruce, Bailey, Votto or Cueto, arguably the best foursome of prospects in any farm system right now. He probably would have settled in at No. 5, ahead of Stubbs, though I'm not the biggest Volquez fan in the world. I wouldn't have advocated him making the Top 100.

Volquez throws hard and has a nice changeup, but he never has shown a reliable curveball in the big leagues and his control and command always have been spotty. I see him more as a classic tease, a guy who can light up radar guns but never will be the frontline starter his velocity suggests he might become.

Trading Josh Hamilton to get Volquez made sense for the Reds, however. They had the second-worst ERA in the National League last year and more outfielders than they knew what to do with. Now Cincinnati has an opening for Bruce to play in the majors and another candidate for its rotation.

Considering that the Rangers have been on a perpetual search for pitching, however, shouldn't it tell us something that they were willing to part with Volquez?