I held Ask BA back for a day to give readers the chance to send in Top 100
Prospects-related questions, and you obliged. We'll get to some of those in a
moment.

But first, a couple of follow-up questions regarding last edition's
discussion of minor league salaries. Joe Russo (Bethlehem, Pa.) wanted to
clarify whether players were paid their monthly salaries throughout the year
or just during the season. They get paid from spring training through the end
of their minor league season. If they're on the 40-man roster, they'll get
paid through the end of the major league regular season.

Jay Levin (Philadelphia) wanted to know how minor leaguers on 40-man rosters
are treated. They do make more money on top of the standard $1,500 a month in
Double-A and $2,100 a month in Triple-A, and how much depends on factors such
as their experience and how many options they've exhausted. Bigger money
comes after they achieve six-year minor league free agency and can shop
themselves to multiple teams. When they're with the parent club, they earn a
prorated share of the major league minimum salary of $327,000.




         In terms of future production at the major league level, how
         significant will the difference be between Justin Upton's production
         and Troy Tulowitzki's production? Upton is the better prospect, and
         both will be playing in hitter-friendly ballparks, albeit with an
         advantage for Tulowitzki, but I don't think the difference will be
         very significant. Outside of a stolen-base advantage, I think
         Tulowitzki will be nearly as valuable to the Rockies as Upton will
         be to the Diamondbacks, with Tulowitzki being potentially more
         valuable to Colorado due to the weaker supporting cast.

         Jake Freehling
         Bartlett, Ill.



We ranked Upton No. 2 and Tulowitzki No. 25 on the Top 100, and I think
readers perceive that we believe that's a major difference. It's really not.
They're both elite prospects. I think Upton will a superstar and Tulowitzki
will be a star, and I'd take Upton in a second if I had my choice. But in
terms of actual numbers, there shouldn't be a huge difference. Coors Field
will help narrow the gap for Tulowitzki, too.

In a typical major league park, when they're in their primes, I can see Upton
hitting .300 with 30-35 homers annually, compared to .280 with 20-25 homers
for Tulowitzki. Upton probably will draw a few more walks and he's much more
of a basestealing threat than Tulowitzki, who's a better defender. He's a
lock to stay at shortstop, while Upton stands a good chance of becoming a
center fielder.

If you look at each player's relative worth to his team, Tulowitzki might
stick out more compared to his lesser supporting cast than Upton will in
Arizona, which has the best group of up-and-coming position players that I
can remember. The Diamondbacks have six hitters ranking from No. 2 to No. 32
on the Top 100. But while evaluating prospects, that's not really a
consideration. I care about the guy's talent, not about the talent around
him.





         I was surprised to see Mets righthander Mike Pelfrey placed as low
         as No. 36 on the Top 100. With all of the praise being lavished upon
         him by Mets officials already and given his physical stature, I'd be
         curious to know why you didn't rank him higher. Was it merely
         inexperience?

         J.P. Schwartz
         Springfield, Ill.


Most of the time when we rank players without pro experience, the reaction is
the exact opposite, that we're fools for placing them so high when we don't
have any meaningful statistics to evaluate. But my answer in that case is the
same as it is here: We're not ranking players based on experience or
inexperience. That might come into play when you're trying to separate two
similar guys, but we rate prospects based on their long-term major league
impact.

We're not just flying blind on prospects who have yet to make their pro
debuts. With college products, such as Pelfrey, we've followed them for three
years at that level and most likely before that as well. Even with a high
schooler such as Upton, we've been talking to scouts about him for 3-4 years.
We have plenty of information on those guys that compensates for a lack of
statistics in pro ball.

We ranked Pelfrey as the ninth-best pitching prospect in baseball, behind
only Francisco Liriano, Chad Billingsley, Justin Verlander, Matt Cain, Jon
Lester, Bobby Jenks, Scott Olsen and Joel Zumaya. It basically came down to
stuff. Pelfrey has a 92-97 mph fastball, but the eight pitchers ahead of him
all have comparable heat and/or are lefthanded.

The biggest thing that separates those guys from Pelfrey right now is their
breaking stuff. Pelfrey's curveball is pretty ordinary, while the others all
have curves or sliders that range from above-average to just plain nasty. We
didn't penalize Pelfrey for his inexperience, but the eight pitchers ahead of
him also have proven themselves at Double-A or higher.





         If Kansas City had left Justin Huber at the catcher position, where
         would he have ranked in the Royals Top 10 at that position? Would
         he have ranked higher on the Top 100 Prospects list? For that matter,
         how much does skill at a position go into the rankings?

         Mike Slayden
         Kansas City, Kan.


A player's position and his skill there play a huge part in our rankings. If
Huber could catch, the scarcity of talent behind the plate would make him a
much more valuable player than he is as a first baseman. I see him as a .280
hitter with 20-homer power, and there are a lot more first basemen than
catchers capable of putting up those numbers. To use another Royals example,
Billy Butler would rank higher had he been able to stay at third base or had
a much of a chance to stay in left field, rather than looking like a future
DH.

Huber has some arm strength, but his lack of receiving skills and poor
footwork hampered him as a catcher. He hurt his left knee in a home-plate
collision while still with the Mets, and the Royals decided to expedite the
development of his bat by moving him to first base after acquiring him in the
Kris Benson trade two years ago.

If Huber was a decent catcher, he still wouldn't have ranked ahead of Alex
Gordon or Butler on our Kansas City Top 10. But rather than ranking at No. 84
on the Top 100 as a first baseman, he'd be a lot closer to catchers Jeff
Mathis (No. 60) and Kenji Johjima (No. 66).