Comments on: Nationals Place Four in MLB.com’s Top 100 Prospects http://districtondeck.com/2012/01/27/nationals-place-four-in-mlb-coms-top-100-prospects/ A Washington Nationals Fan Site - News, Blogs, Opinion and More Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:15:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Aaron Somers http://districtondeck.com/2012/01/27/nationals-place-four-in-mlb-coms-top-100-prospects/comment-page-1/#comment-1368594 Aaron Somers Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:23:17 +0000 http://districtondeck.com/?p=2874#comment-1368594 @SorianoJoe When we came up with our own Top Prospect list roughly a month ago, Peacock came in at #3 and Cole was #4. There was very little margin between the two, though I don't recall the specifics to the difference - I calculated our final rankings by assigning a point value to position and subsequently calculating totals from lists submitted by myself, Michael, Andrew, Baseball America, MLB.com, Seedlings to Stars, and FanGraphs. Naturally, our lists carried a little more weight to balance out some subjectivity. So for all I know, the two are/were largely interchangeable from that exercise. That said, I think there is still enough belief that Peacock can/will remain a rotation option rather than being instilled at the back end of the bullpen. Had he remained with the Nationals, I think this certainly would have been the plan at least in the short term. With Oakland, however, that may change considering the sheer depth of rotation options that currently reside in the organization. Cole, however, is still a long ways away. While he projects as a #2 starter, there is just far too much uncertainty. Projectability only gets him so far. He has continued development that will ultimately determine what type of pitcher he turns out to be. But, let me ask you this. Peacock could hold down a spot in the middle of the rotation for the next 3-4 years. Beyond that, if he's moved to the bullpen then so be it. Cole may not be ready for the Majors for another 3 years. Based solely on those statements, would you rather have Peacock now or Cole later? That may be why one seems to always appear before the other in prospect lists. @SorianoJoe When we came up with our own Top Prospect list roughly a month ago, Peacock came in at #3 and Cole was #4. There was very little margin between the two, though I don’t recall the specifics to the difference – I calculated our final rankings by assigning a point value to position and subsequently calculating totals from lists submitted by myself, Michael, Andrew, Baseball America, MLB.com, Seedlings to Stars, and FanGraphs. Naturally, our lists carried a little more weight to balance out some subjectivity. So for all I know, the two are/were largely interchangeable from that exercise.

That said, I think there is still enough belief that Peacock can/will remain a rotation option rather than being instilled at the back end of the bullpen. Had he remained with the Nationals, I think this certainly would have been the plan at least in the short term. With Oakland, however, that may change considering the sheer depth of rotation options that currently reside in the organization.

Cole, however, is still a long ways away. While he projects as a #2 starter, there is just far too much uncertainty. Projectability only gets him so far. He has continued development that will ultimately determine what type of pitcher he turns out to be.

But, let me ask you this. Peacock could hold down a spot in the middle of the rotation for the next 3-4 years. Beyond that, if he’s moved to the bullpen then so be it. Cole may not be ready for the Majors for another 3 years. Based solely on those statements, would you rather have Peacock now or Cole later? That may be why one seems to always appear before the other in prospect lists.

]]> By: SorianoJoe http://districtondeck.com/2012/01/27/nationals-place-four-in-mlb-coms-top-100-prospects/comment-page-1/#comment-1368590 SorianoJoe Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:06:10 +0000 http://districtondeck.com/?p=2874#comment-1368590 I don't get why so many people have Peacock over Cole, because Cole has the upside to become a legit No. 2 starter, while Peacock will most likely end up as a high-leverage reliever. Not saying that's bad, but I'd rather have a No. 3 starter than a SU. I don’t get why so many people have Peacock over Cole, because Cole has the upside to become a legit No. 2 starter, while Peacock will most likely end up as a high-leverage reliever. Not saying that’s bad, but I’d rather have a No. 3 starter than a SU.

]]> By: Aaron Somers http://districtondeck.com/2012/01/27/nationals-place-four-in-mlb-coms-top-100-prospects/comment-page-1/#comment-1368588 Aaron Somers Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:46:57 +0000 http://districtondeck.com/?p=2874#comment-1368588 @championjclark I questioned that as well, and mistakenly left those thoughts out of the post above. There are some big questions marks surrounding Purke right now - namely concerns about his ability to stay healthy considering his collegiate track record. Now, that said, those factors did not prevent us from naming him among the organization's top prospects when we came up with our own rankings last month. I'm not sure what MLB.com or Jonathan Mayo were thinking with regards to Purke and why he was left off the list. Good question though. Thanks for the comment. @championjclark I questioned that as well, and mistakenly left those thoughts out of the post above. There are some big questions marks surrounding Purke right now – namely concerns about his ability to stay healthy considering his collegiate track record. Now, that said, those factors did not prevent us from naming him among the organization’s top prospects when we came up with our own rankings last month. I’m not sure what MLB.com or Jonathan Mayo were thinking with regards to Purke and why he was left off the list. Good question though. Thanks for the comment.

]]>