http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/26742.html




         Each season, there are good prospects who elevate themselves into
         elite status. Rockies third baseman Ian Stewart (No. 57 on the Top
         100 Prospects list in 2004, No. 4 in 2005) and Angels shortstop
         Brandon Wood (No. 83 in 2005, No. 3 in 2006) are two recent examples.
         What prospects are going to make a similar jump this year?

         Mike Parnell
         Boston



Great question, Mike. Most of the prospects who make that leap are young guys
without much of a track record rather than older players who suddenly break
out in the upper minors. When I combed through the current Top 100 list
looking for candidates, I found eight guys who piqued my interest—none of
whom played above Class A in 2005.

It won't be a huge jump, but I think Diamondbacks outfielder Carlos Gonzales
(No. 32 on this year's list) will be in the top 10 next year. He's going to
be a .300-hitting, 30-homer right fielder with a strong arm, and he's going
to put up monster numbers in the high Class A California League in 2006.

My other breakout candidates, all from the bottom half of the Top 100:
Dodgers lefthander Scott Elbert (No. 55) and third baseman Blake DeWitt (No.
82), Reds outfielder Jay Bruce (No. 76), Cubs lefty Mark Pawelek (No. 85),
Angels righty Nick Adenhart (No. 90), Orioles outfielder Nolan Reimold (No.
99) and Twins righty Anthony Swarzak (No. 100).

As a bonus, I'll give you two more guys I like who just missed the Top 100
cut. Shortstop Reid Brignac and righty Wade Davis, both Devil Rays, are going
to make bigger names for themselves in 2006.






         Which of the top draft prospects are being advised by Scott Boras?
         If your favorite team is picking early, like mine (the Pirates) is
         at No. 4 overall, this can be a deal-breaker in determining their
         choice.

         Wilbur Miller
         Silver Spring, Md.


We've confirmed that Boras is advising eight prospects for the 2006 draft,
all college players. In order of how they ranked on our initial College Top
100 Prospects list , they are: Missouri righthander Max Scherzer (No. 3),
Southern California righty Ian Kennedy (No. 5), Florida first baseman Matt
LaPorta (No. 7), Arizona shortstop Jason Donald (No. 17), Arizona State
outfielder Colin Curtis (No. 19), Cal Poly righty Gary Daley (No. 24), Tulane
first baseman Mark Hamilton (No. 33) and Mississippi third baseman Chris
Coghlan (No. 38).

While Boras usually steers his advisees to high-revenue teams and away from
small-revenue clubs, his reputation won't necessarily torpedo their draft
position or bonus. Last year, he advised seven players with legitimate
first-round aspirations: Georgia Tech shortstop Tyler Greene, St. John's
righty Craig Hansen, Tennessee righty Luke Hochevar, Baylor righty Mark
McCormick, Utah high school lefty Mark Pawelek, Wichita State righty Mike
Pelfrey and Texas catcher Taylor Teagarden.

Only Greene went as high as he would have if signability didn't factor into
the picture. But Pelfrey ($5.25 million) and Hansen ($4 million) landed the
only big league contracts handed out to 2005 draftees. Pawelek received the
third-highest bonus given a pitcher ($1.75 million). All three went in the
first round, as did Greene, who got slightly more than slot money ($1.1
million) as the 30th overall pick. McCormick was a supplemental first-rounder
who signed for slot money ($800,000). The only one of the seven who didn't go
in the first round was Teagarden, who late supplemental first-round money
($725,000) as a third-rounder.

Teams don't enjoy dealing with Boras, but with the exception of Hochevar,
whose negotiations with the Dodgers devolved into one of the bigger draft
debacles ever, his clients didn't make out badly at all last year.




         Do you think it might be about time to reconsider some of the
         non-Americans when choosing your Top 100 Prospects? The Top 100
         demographics show Americans holding a whopping 82 of the 100 spots,
         yet with the top U.S. major leaguers struggling so badly against
         the rest of the world, perhaps it's time to give more attention to
         players from other nations. Losing one game can be written off as a
         fluke, but finishing 3-3 ain't no fluke. It appears that there's now
         more than one country that can play this game. Maybe next year, BA's
         Top 100 Prospects will reflect that. On the bright side, maybe the
         Americans will get to play South Africa again in 2009.

         Michael Dominguez
         Oshawa, Ontario


Apples and oranges, Michael, apples and oranges. I still don't comprehend why
people were so surprised at the outcome of the World Baseball Classic.

With a limited amount of games, all of the legitimate contenders were very
vulnerable. And no one who follows baseball closely should be surprised that
Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico and Venezuela also
had a lot of talent. With the final two rounds coming down to single-game
showdowns, any of those nations or the United States could have won the WBC
if their pitching got hot.

To get back to the question, I don't see what the results of a few glorified
all-star games have to do with our Top 100 Prospects list. The Top 100
doesn't reflect any belief that Americans know how to play the game better
than anyone else. It's simply the best 100 prospects in the game, period.

Check out the rosters for the annual Futures Game--click here to see the 2005
squads--and you'll see that the U.S. team is always more stacked than the
World team. That's because the majority of pros are signed out of the United
States, so there's a deeper pool of talent to choose from.

Last year, 40 of the 64 players selected to play in the All-Star Game were
Americans. I don't think the demographics of our Top 100 are out of whack by
any means.