DocBauer

Not going to pretend I know enough to offer any real insight here, but thought I'd toss out some opinions nonetheless: Stankiewicz has ideal size and solid numbers. The ERA and SO/BB look especially nice. No clue where he might have been drafted in a normal year, but it would appear production vs velocity kept him undrafted. Wish we knew more about his secondary stuff. Can the Twins bump his MPH up a couple notches? Seems the control is there. Sweany is a tall LHP. Period. Guessing there is some velocity projection there. Why not for $20K? Hall, the catcher, is interesting to me in a unique way. His numbers, at a pair of smaller schools, is nothing to get excited about even a little bit. Seth states he's a good athlete. But what I find interesting is be was recruited to Arkansas by Dave VanHorn, one of the best college baseball programs in the country and one of the best and most respected head coaches in the sport. No clue why he didn't end up at Arkansas, but I find it interesting he was recruited and originally committed to such a powerhouse school. Sharpe is another LHP, which I have a fixation for, lol. Very little offered here in regard to, well, anything, except career ERA and SO/BB numbers. Think I may be too busy and/or lazy to look up more information, lol. But obviously Twins scouts are familiar with him from their initial scouting of Jeffers, if nothing else. Looks like he was off to a good start before the season was cancelled. Without more information on each of these guys, or some context where they might have been drafted/ranked, all just "meh" on the surface. But it sure seems like the current scouting department is pretty thorough these days. Maybe there's a surprise in there somewhere?

I "liked" some comments here and didn't "like" others but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate the opinions or those who made them. Once again, varying viewpoints presented in a logical manner by the audience that is TD. And I almost hate to say anything more because no matter how well you attempt to write something, what you say can still be interpreted differently depending on the reader. But regardless, a few comments follow. There is a classic axiom that goes something like: "Those we fail to learn from history's mistakes are damned to repeat them." I don't know that the removal of this statue, or others, are necessarily right or wrong in any or every particular instance. I'm a pretty smart guy, but I never pretend to know everything. But perspective changes over time. These changes can be personal or public/social. Something that seemed OK or at least innocuous at one time might, over time and reflection, have a different meaning and perspective later. And each and everyone of us has said or done something silly/stupid/regrettable in our lives even though tbere was no ill intent. But as we have learned from our personal mistakes, so can society learn. To this day, I am a proud, crank up the music and singalong rocker and country boy. I harbor no ill will to anyone based on anything other than maybe we just didn't get along. Period. But I am very glad NASCAR...big fan as a kid and still kinda like it...has banned the confederate flag. In my youth, I had a small confederate bandana tacked to my wall for a time because to me... and this has been widely discussed in recent weeks across media...somewhere along the line that flag meant "rebel", southern charm and rockabilly, Dukes of Hazzard and just having a good time. What and where it came from became distorted. The perception changed. Personal and public reflection is now asking how that happened, and has re-examined history, and decided, rightly so, that you simply re-invent something with such a negative origin, even if, again, there was no ill intent. And I don't believe in ignoring history or attempting to re-write it. Nor do I believe in knee jerk reaction to simply remove everything and anything that some might find offensive. Then we are talking about censorship and fascism which is a whole different arguement and not what we are talking about here. We are talking about learning from past, from history, and recognizing that certain public figures, certain public symbols, just really aren't appropriate for a society that wants and needs to grow TOGETHER. Should Calvin maybe have a plaque somewhere in Target Field as the owner and founder of the Twins as part of the team's history? If he doesn't already, perhaps he should. That's not my call, nor am I making a judgement on that. But people learn individually from mistakes and grow. So can/does society. HOPEFULLY. There was no ill will made by the Twins when the statue was erected, I'm fully confident in that. They didn't make a mistake at the time. But growth and reflection years later allows for change and new perception and understanding. And that's a positive thing. There has been no condemnation to the Griffith family. No personal attacks on anyone. This is a reaction to recognition that we still, unfortunately, have issues in this country that we all wish had disappeared years ago. Some may see it as merely a gesture. If so, hopefully it is a gesture with heart behind it that will be one more step up the staircase to full enlightenment.

I had a feeling this was going to happen. While we can never change history, of Griffith's part of it, nor his importance in the foundation of the Twins franchise, this was the proper thing to do IMO.

What I find interesting, even if the data is not 100% complete as stated, is the failure rate of college pitchers drafted that high vs hitters. It's actually something I felt was true, but interesting to see it in actual numbers. I don't believe that means anything close to "don't draft college pitchers early". And remember, the Twins grabbed Canterino, a college pitcher, in the 2nd round last year. I think the FO philosophy is simply draft guys with a "something" you really like and that you think you can build on. Just because a college pitcher is older than a HS arm doesn't mean he's a finished product yet. And they have drafted more than a few college arms, just not in the 1st round yet. In baseball you seldom draft any position based on pure need because that player is not going to fill that need for a few years. You draft the best player available that fits your organizational framework, while still trying to draft all positions. While it may appear there is a glut of corner OF/1B types in the system, it's not as if they have drafted them all in the 1st round. Lewis, Cavaco and Jeffers are clearly not that corner player. (Jeffers being a 2nd round selection, but still). Now, you still need arms. Good arms. Projectile arms. And with reports of how deep the college pitching class was, I'm a little surprised and disappointed there wasn't ONE college pitcher available the Twins really liked in this abbreviated draft. I can only assume they stuck to their philosophy of drafting the best player available. I think previous drafts have shown they have mixed it up pretty well in their overall selection process. And I dont think there is any stigma against a college player vs a HS player. In fact, it may be opposite. HS kids are very hard to project due to physical development. Most top college players, though certainly not all, were drafted coming out of HS in later rounds but decided to play college ball and improve their ability. Then they grow an inch or two, add weight, gain experience, and are a different player 2-3yrs later. This draft was very unusual. If things return to normal next season, or even a 20-25 round draft formula, and the Twins ignore arms, then I will raise a questioning arm and complain.

Not sure I can put Sabato in the top 10 at this point. He's shiny and new as the latest 1st round pick, and the Twins seem to be very happy they got him at 27. No question he has potential and let's hope he turns out to be a decent hitter and 1B defensively so that his power can shine. But ahead of Rooker, for instance? Rooker is older, but he's at least a little better athlete with OF ability and has shown he can hit and has good power. He's adjusted to every level and did well at AAA last year. Good chance he sees ML this season. (Assuming we have one). I just can't put a rookie 1B, 27th selection, even with potential this high.

Let me be clear, I think BOTH sides are at fault here. And I see the arguments of both sides. There is so much to lose for both sides here, not just in 2020, but for the next 3-5yrs as BOTH sides are going to see and feel repricusions financially, possible work stoppages, growing animosity, and public apathy that could easily rival and surpass what we saw the last time there was a similar work stop. From a purely logically, practical viewpoint, taking out the love of baseball from a fan perspective, I do tend to lean towards the owners and MLB in general by a very small percentage. Again, just from a logical viewpoint of a business trapped in an awkward situation for a season that never began, unlike the NBA and NHL and fall football that hasn't even started yet but could potentially have full seasons with anywhere to no, partial or full fan attendance/participation. Where I greatly dislike ownership and side with the players is how the initial offer, and subsequent offers, seem to penalize the real power players of the league. And I 100% agree with you that has galvanized the union in a poor and misguided calculation on the owners behalf. I only caught the last portion of a great interview with Buster Olney where he stated...as of now...the only way baseball is played in 2020 is because one of 2 things happen: 1] The owners cave in to the union for at least a roughly half season of full proration, and then huddle together and bar the doors after 2021 and try to get their way. 2] The union gives in to play in 2020, get what they can, and then they bunker themselves after 2021 and try to win the next bargaining session as they now appear to be galvanized, as you stated, and as Olney also states. Either way, both sides are at combative odds against the other. And FA is going to be very different next season, and I would bet arbitration players will take it on the chin as well. And the ridiculous part of all of this is it doesn't have to be this way. And this where I do give ownership credit for offering up revenue sharing options including the playoffs, which the union quickly rejected. (Again, the sliding scale percentage salary offer ownership first presented was taken as an insult, and I would say rightly so). I would like to think the owners are intelligent people. I would like to think the players and their union reps are smart people. (Personally, I think agents have their own agenda and are in the ears of players and the union too much, but it's just an opinion). You would think, hope, that both sides would look at the NBA and NFL, and their model of success in regard to revenue sharing and salary caps with ceilings, but also floors and adapt their negotiations to formulas that have proven to work. I'm not impressed by Manfred but maybe he's just a mouthpiece. My understanding is he was brought on board due to his experience as a negotiator. I feel he is either a puppet or out of element. Ownership needs someone forward thinking and given some level of autonomy to present reality to owners for the good of baseball. Players and their union need to recognize just what is going on in the world and what is good for the growth of the sport that they play, and for their future. For instance, and I'm just tossing out fake numbers for arguement sake, do players want FA numbers to take a 40% dip the next few seasons due to financial loss or 20%? Is it better to be part of a solution now, or be drug along for an extended adjustment? If the union truly represents ALL players and not just the top 10-15%, then wouldn't they be better served to examine financial floors such as minimum contracts, minimum team payrolls, perhaps earlier FA status? Sorry I'm rambling. But both sides are understandable here, but both sides are wrong. And both sides need one another or there is no league.

We've been over this a couple times already, or at least I have. Nothing I think/say is going to change anyone's mind. This remains the fault of both sides. But here are some things that i dont think anyone can dispute: 1] The NBA got almost their entire season in, with fans, before the season paused. They are basically going to finish the rest of their season, though probably with zero fans. Same for the NHL. Baseball never got to play a single game to this point, fans or no fans. 2] The NFL and college football are HOPEFUL of full seasons with at least SOME fan attendance, if not full attendance. That will depend on public health/risk as well as the public unto itself. With so many unknowns, there is already conjecture the NFL may be actually lowering their cap next season. Why? Because without a full season and little to no fan support/income they will lose a huge revenue stream. Some colleges are talking about trimming sports. Does any of this sound familiar? 3] Fan support/income is approximately 1/3 of total earnings for MLB, with a low of about 20-25% depending on which source you read/believe. How is that difficult to understand? And BTW, despite regular season contracts with national networks, the playoffs provide something around half of said network agreements. In other words, if something happens and the playoffs are suddenly cancelled, MLB revenue gets smacked down yet again. 4] It has been reported by national correspondents, who have read the March agreement that everyone likes to site, that there is language written there that states the owners had the right to re-open negotiations once additional information presented itself. This is not backing out of a deal, it's re-examing it now that new information HAS presented itself. 5] As a business, MLB is open for business paying full staff without any income for what is almost half a season now. Most teams have announced plans to pay milb players for the year. Ownership has paid out one large, shared sum early in the pandemic for the players. Once again, they have been operating with no incoming cash flow. Despite all these things, the owners are the bad guys here because they are trying to mitigate their losses as much as possible? I am NOT saying the players don't have a right to earn money. Everyone wants money for themselves and their family. Nobody wants a pay cut or a job loss, even if temporary. And where the the owners have blown it, IMO, was the sliding wage scale they initially proposed. It should have been a more balanced and neutral, universal pro-rated for everyone. There is trying to mitigate losses and then there is ticking off the largest power players in the union. I was also encouraged by playoff revenue sharing with the players. That means more money going to the players. The players want full proration of salaries and will allow ownership a couple years to defer additional salary payments. Ownership can do better. They should have done better. Hopefully they will do better. But in no way, shape or form is baseball not being played some universal fault/responsibility/conspiracy by ownership.

Honesty, I never expected much to come out of this FA draft stuff. Some guys just wouldn't want to go back to school or wouldn't be allowed to come back. But unless your college wouldn't allow you back, or was simply so strapped financially to have you back, you were always better off going back for another season. We can talk about the $20K, but that's after the 1st 10 rounds or more anyway when it comes to bonuses. So if you have the option, why not go back, have fun, work on your game, hope for some $ with a better draft position with a normal year. Twins get a couple fliers, great. Otherwise, I'm just focused on what is on hand, worried about milb in 2020, worried about any sort of real MLB in 2020, pissed at both sides, worried about the future of MLB, still pissed at both sides, and just want to see some baseball.

I was waiting for this and will find it interesting to see the next list. For giggles and further discussion, the TD top 15 as of, i believe, February of this year, removing Graterol and bumping players up a notch: Lewis Kirilloff Larnach Balazovic Duran Jeffers Cavaco Rooker Enlow Thorpe Celestino Javier Wallner Canterino Colina FWIW, BA top 10 (they only do a top 10 of course): Lewis Kirilloff Larnach Balazovic Duran Jeffers Canterino Enlow Urbana Yes, only 9 as I'm leaving Graterol out of BA top 10 as I did so for TD. Only fair. Urbina is the biggest disparity here. Small discrepancy in rankings with Canterino. In THIS ranking, Urbina holds the 17 spot but Wallner slips 3 spaces. Not a lot of movement here in the TD rankings so far. And while I was slightly surprised by the picks made, I don't think the draft was a poor one at all. But as I stated in the draft thread, this may be the first I can remember where draft choices, even the #1 pick, doesn't slide in to the top 10. And that is a good thing! It shows how deep and talented our system is! Considering this is 16-20, I'm guessing Sabato sneaks in to the top 15. I can agree with that. Otherwise, we should be status quo. And that's not a bad thing.

Following up Seth's comment, over the weekend I was reflecting on the draft as well as the current TOP 10 lists for Twins prospects. Basically, 12 names make up the various top 10 lists, whether from TD or Baseball America or whoever. Now I'm not saying the Twins had a poor draft last week at all. But the system is so deep and strong right now that I honestly don't think any of our 4 new selections will bump anyone out of any top 10 list. When is the last time you could say something like that?

Exactly! This isn't the Vikings drafting 3 CB and 2 S because of holes and opportunity. This is drafting the best talent you can for 3-5yrs down the road. Which is why I can't bash anyone selected even though we all fall in love with power and pitching. We all love power, let's be honest. But we also love pitching, especially when the Twins have had big stretches WITHOUT developing internal pitching. The OP is about "corner" depth. OK, let's look at that in regard to ML and milb depth. 3B: Donaldson is signed for 4yrs. Sano can also play here. No immediate need, even though the draft is not about immediate need. Miranda is a couple years away. No problem. Lewis could also be the answer as he could potentially play anywhere. Blakenhorn could be a factor here, but for whatever reason, the Twins don't seem interested in him trying to figure it out. (I'm still dumbfounded on this one). Javier, healthy one day and rocking, still has the potential to move here as well. (Kinda lost hope in Bechtold). No immediate need for the next few years. 1B: There should be no need for a full time 1B for the next few years with Sano moving here, and moving in full support. And Donaldson could also shift here if necessary in a couple of years. Either could also be a primary DH. In the milb system, as it stands currently, Weil is probably the only true 1B worthwhile to speak of unless we drop down to rookie ball or convert someone to 1B primarily. To be fair there are options here. (No immediate need here) LF/RF: Kepler is entrenched. Rosario is good to very good but could be gone in a year. Kirilloff and Larnach seem to be very, very close. Rooker could be a factor here, or at 1B. Wallner COULD be good, but let's give him some time before we include him here. We have some very interesting CF options down on the farm, but even Celistino appears to be at least a year away. Unless someone converts full time to a corner, Larnach, Kirilloff and Rooker are the immediate options. (Minimal he'd here) DH: Cruz is the man for 2020. He may or may not be the guy for 2021. After him? Any combination of Sano, Donaldson, Kirilloff or Larnach, not to mention a day off for Garver, or Blakenhorn if he grabs a spot, etc. (Minimal need here) So why anni rambling so much? 4 reasons: 1] I'm bored as he'll when it comes to baseball in 2020. 2] Despite the OP talking about "corners", 3B was left out. 3] Even leaving out 3B in the discussion, we are still talking about 5 position spots on tbe roster. We are talking LF/RF/1B/DH/4th-5th OF. 4] The recent draftee position players are all 2-4yrs away. That changes the complexion of things down the road doesn't it? REALLY hoping our smart and analytic based FO and new found reputation for development and treating our milb players fairly will bring in a couple quality rookie college arms who will sign and want to be a part of this organization for that $20K.

Not going to go in to detail as I already did in the wrap up thread, but the FO has a very logical approach to drafting pitchers IMO. But in short, history seems to indicate if you don't get a diamond at the beginning of the 1st round, your odds of drafting a quality or frontline SP later in the 1st is not much different than getting one later. And to be fair, the FO has drafted pitchers in the supplemental and 2nd rounds the past few years. I don't doubt they will draft a 1st round pitcher again. And I again confess I was a little disappointed they didn't draft at least 1 college pitcher in a year in which arms seemed so, reportedly, prevelant. In fact, I'm more excited about the HS pitcher, Raya, than I am anyone else. But it's obvious they look at history and analytics, follow their board, and believe that unless an arm falls to you that you truly love and believe in...at least early...take the position player and look for projectability in an arm and build and approach and at least ONE GREAT PITCH/ASPECT that you really like and build from there. I think we've also seen that in some of the trades they've made as well.

I agree with you 100%! And we've seen initial rookie seasons like his before. Still, it was disappointing. All the more reason I'm really hopeful that what I sketched out above happens, some sort of adjustment to EST where they create a mini milb season.

Despite covid, despite ongoing issues just getting a ML season going, despite reported shutdown of milb for 2020, despite ownership losing money for a season actually played...(NOT the point of discussion herem just mentioning it)...I am remaining opptomistic about some sort of milb development still taking place this year. Some teams have punted and made themselves look bad while doing so. But many teams, including the Twins, have agreed to pay their milb players. The Twins have also announced no cuts, even though during a "normal" season you would see some about now. Owners and FO also know the minors are the lifeblood of the sport. So you can't just pay prospects to do nothing and not develop. While not everyone will be participating, some independent leagues have already put a plan in place to play ball in 2020. So if you are a forward thinking team, which the Twins are, I believe there will be some sort of adjusted EST this year. It's possible, with their great facilities in Ft Myers the Twins could build teams just amongst themselves to coach and play. It's also very possible they could reach out to Boston and a couple other close proximity teams and work out various scenarios where they get to play someone else. Any other ML team could do the same. They may get tired of facing the same faces, but at least they would be playing on a sort of expanded EST to gain experience and still develop. Seems simple, logical and forward thinking to me. Or maybe I'm just smarter than them, lol.

I want to echo disappointment that the Twins didn't draft a single college pitcher when all reports I've read stated this class was very deep with viable arms. That's not a knock on the 4 guys selected to be clear. Here I go trying to seem intelligent again, but the FO has a thought process that is very clear at this point. And to be honest, from all I have witnessed and read, it appears history has shown that unless you select an arm in the first 5 spots, maybe 10, your odds of actually selecting a quality ML SP, much less a top of the rotation arm, diminish appreciably. And that's not to say the Twins WON'T select an arm at the top of the draft. After all, they have selected a few of them recently with supplemental and 2nd round choices. But think for a moment how volatile the projection part of the selection process for a HS arm at 18yrs old. Then think about a college pitcher. Have they maxed out? Do they have anything in their repitoire, not being top 5-10 selection worthy, that you feel good enough about future projectability to make them a later 1st round selection? And what about the injury factor? Despite all the advances, and continuing advances in medical science, a damaged shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand or labrum, etc, is still easier for a position player to overcome and reach their potential than for a pitcher. Again, not saying the Twins WON'T take an arm in the 1st round, or shouldn't, but I think their thought process is clear and understandable. They believe in using that top choice for a position player that has a chance, whether it be overriding skill set or particular skill set, and then grab pitchers that have "something" you really like and can build off of and develop. And they really seem to believe in the development system they have in place. And there have been a lot of stories including here at TD, about their approaches and individualized attention. Gone are the days of simplistic "everyman" mantras. And when you look at some of the young guys the FO has traded for...Chalmers could be a prime example...they are willing to take some risks based on potential via development. While I was really hoping for at least one college arm, and even speculated they might break traditional approach this weird season and select up to 3 because why not, I can't fault them for sticking to their guns. One thing I find interesting is how young each of the 4 selections is. All 3 position players have power, power potential, hit and OB potential even with some SO tendencies, but are banking on development. I'm with others when I'm actually mkre excited about Marco Raya than any other pick. He won't be 18yo until July, if I read it right. He is 6' and only about 170lbs but great mechanics and throws up to 94mph with movement and high spin rate. Reportedly, his slider and curve are already above average and his change is solid. He may or may not be one of those kids who would have gone to college and end up 6'2" and 210lbs and throw 98mph in 3yrs and be a top 5-10 selection. But if reports about all of his good qualities are accurate, what could he be in 3yrs with coaching and another 20+lbs of physical development thrown in?

Except it's only free for a few precious players. College baseball has something like 13 total scholarships to spread out over their entire roster. So most guys are on 1/4-1/2 athletic scholarship. Though to be fair, colleges seem to do a pretty good job finding grants and the such to help offset at least part of the remaining cost for some players. But I absolutely agree with Andrew that the vast majority of those who will sign for $20K are college seniors who don't want to go back, can't afford to go back, or have been attending a school that won't let them come back and certainly don't want to attempt to transfer to another school for 1yr.

Just wanted to add that I believe in a recent interview he stated he's never worked with an actual catching coach before coming to the Twins. And I think we've already heard and seen what a difference emphasis on that position is doing for the entire system. Throwing at least decently is still part of a catchers job, but the running game has been so de-emphasized in today's game as to make that aspect so less integral than it used to be. The Twins have made changes to stances behind the plate that keep a catchers more fresh, and allow them better access to low ball reception/blocking. We have certainly seen that in Garver at the ML level. At the end of the day, the most important part of a catcher's job is game calling, working and communicating with that guy in the mound, setting a good target, framing vs grabbing or reaching, and just keeping the ball in front of him. From reports, Jeffers has improved greatly in those areas.

Why does Nick Nelson sound like a featured crime reporter for the Daily Planet? (Could also run with private eye but we're discussing journalism here...sorta).

I keep reading he's between 160-170lbs. Someone buy this kid a couple cheeseburgers! Athletic, smooth mechanics and sits 90-94mph consistently from what I read. (Along with 2 above average breaking balls and a solid change). What kind of velocity does he have in a couple of years when he's 190lbs?

I've noticed a strong tendancy by the current braintrust to severely limit IP by college pitchers, if they throw at all. As I recall, Sands didn't throw at all his first draft year before sort of exploding on the scene in 2019. Obviously an attempt to not overwork an arm coming off a full season of college ball. (Some pitchers are often "abused" in regard to IP or lack of rest between big games, etc.) As I recall, it was initially thought Canterino might not throw at all last season before he did on a limited basis after a short break.

Awesome. Thank you. I don't do Twitter so good news. Despite so little information at my fingertips, for some reason, this selection excites me more than the others.

TINY detail but actually 90th from BA. But why quibble about 2 spots? Kind of reminds me of college football recruiting where a kid comes from a small school or a low population state so he isn't ranked as high as some other kids. Then he goes to a couple of camps and performs as well or better against higher regarded recruits and everything changes. BA lists him currently as 17yo and 6' 1" and 200lbs. While Hawaii is probably about as far away from being a baseball recruiting hotbed as you can get, if you are the team CF and have that size and power, you'd like to think the arm could stretch out enough to play RF in a couple of years. Once again, power, but hit ability and BB to go along with some SO. A definite pattern with our FO. Take the elite athlete where you can, but otherwise look to the best triple slash line you can find.

FWIW, Baseball America had him at 166. Not blowing smoke, just looking at the positives. Drafted by the Cardinals in 2018 and they have an obvious history for scouting well. As previously pointed out by Tom above, 3rd in the SEC in OPS in 2019. Lead his team in 2019 in BA, OB, and SLG. That's not bad stuff. Slow start in an abbreviated 2020, but had 5HR and 12-8 BB/SO before cancellation of the season. He appears to be earmarked for LF. And yet, he was tried at 2B and CF at times. Clearly, if he was just an athletic stiff, no team much less one in the SEC, would have tried him in those spots. Once again, the FO looking at projectability. Notice a trend with their first 2 picks? Hit ability, power and potential power, SO but also BB and OB potential.

No insult intended, but when I read the Baseball America profile on him they mention massive forearms and his power and being limited to 1B only where he is anywhere from average to below average, and I suddenly flash back 30yrs ago to Steve Balboni. To his credit, he's seen as an average to maybe above average hitter with maybe as much power as any hitter in the draft. He strikes out a bunch, but is not afraid to take walks. Does this remind anyone of a less athletic version of Sano? Also, to be fair, his is only a draft eligible sophomore. So with a little time, conditioning and work, perhaps he will be a competent to good 1B. I hate to make comparisons, but Jeffers surprised a lot of people. But hard work has reportedly turned him in to a pretty solid catcher defensively. I'm not sold at this point on the choice. But even being a 1B "only" there is real value if he can hit with that kind of power potential and field his position solidly. Not everyone has to be an elite athlete who can play anywhere. If he's something close to Hrbek the sequel, I'd be very pleased.

Also forgot to comment on the great athlete aspect, I've always liked pitchers who were good athletes. Never understood why being athletic was only tied to being a position player. Being a good overall athlete as a pitcher should only help mechanically, provide health and conditioning, as well as being able to field your position.