I think in theory, if things have gone consistently well, you should have something in the upper minors regardless of whether a few players are in limbo or have been promoted.  The big problem is the 2004 and 2005 drafts haven't produced much from the first/supplemental rounds so far.

Other than Aaron Hill, none of the first round picks from 2002-2005 has really made a significant impact for either the Jays or their subsequent teams.  Russ Adams, David Purcey, Zach Jackson, Ricky Romero.  This is the round where the vast majority of your top end and major league regular talent should be coming from.  1 hit out of 5 picks (and Hill may fall more into the solid regular than star category) is simply not good enough in the AL East if you expect to be competing with far less major league money.

Fortunately the Jays have had some fortune beyond the first round in guys like Bush, Marcum, Janssen, Thigpen, Lind, etc.  But they are what they are; good value picks but not stars with the possible exception of Lind if he reaches his ceiling.  The point being you constantly need new players coming up through the system.  Furthermore, the point of the draft is not just to produce players but desireable players.  And for most teams (including the Jays) the most desirable players appear to be younger with higher upside.  So the decision to make "safe" picks in the early going doesn't really make sense.

     RE: 2002-2005 and down on the farm... My 2 cents worth... Is the failure of the farm system an enigma or an abyss or something in between... both the Yankee$ and the Red $ox  have picked behind the Jays yet have far superior projectable talent... some bought but most developed... superior baseball knowledge?...superior scouting ?... superior teaching/training/developing?... Yes to all in varying degrees but a big "yes" to the last . 

    I recall when Martinez / Iorg were fired one of the reasons given was the failure by them to communicate and set goals/ acheivement/ success to their young players so that they could be successful. I presumed that this approach would by necessity be system wide. I don't know whether or to what extent it has been adapted but based on success rate, at least in regard to non-pitchers, it appears to be ineffective. Success may be as fleeting as confidence.

    I also recall that when MacGergor was pitching with the Jays that he believed that lefthanded pitchers to progress needed a lefthanded pitching coach. This seems reasonable and who should argue with MacGregor about success and left handed pitchers. So when the Jays 3 top pitching prospects are lefthanded who coaches them? (I don't know the answer I'm just posing the question). ("Purcey picks up control tips from a pitching coach from another un-named system" ???) I've read about the meteoric growth of the recent Yankee depth in pitching and wonder why can't the Jays be as creative with supposedly better talent?

    A third anomally that I don't understand... if Roy Halladay is reading the "pitchers bible" and is extolling its virtues should not a copy be given to every pitcher in the organization?... and why is he reading it now in his 5th or 6th season? Did MLB not learn anything about Lloyd Percival and European hockey teaching techniques vis a vis hockey today? It's as if player development, like most baseball writers, is still at a "preSabremetric" level .  Sometimes I wonder whether baseball is still back there with ol' Dizzy Dean and "just hum her in there, pardner "? It was colourful but how much did it impart.

     Anyway FWIW , My 2  IMNSHO Cents Worth ...Rada, Rada, Rada...

A little off subject, but minor league related.  The Fisher Cats have started posting TV shows on YouTube.  (there are 3 so far).  They seem to crop up every 6 weeks or so, but may be more frequent during the season.

The latest one has a phone call with Tracy Thorpe.  They are rather quirky, but let's hope that as spring training and the season arrive that they'll be a lot more informative on the baseball side.

 RE: 2002-2005 and down on the farm... My 2 cents worth... Is the failure of the farm system an enigma or an abyss or something in between... both the Yankee$ and the Red $ox  have picked behind the Jays yet have far superior projectable talent... some bought but most developed... superior baseball knowledge?...superior scouting ?... superior teaching/training/developing?... Yes to all in varying degrees but a big "yes" to the last .

Actually, the biggest factor in the Sox and Yanks having better drafts from 2002-2005 is that they had far more selections in the first three rounds than the Jays had.

I wonder if the size of your player budget affects your ability to exploit the FA compensation system (ie more money equals more player movement that exploits the inefficiencies of the Elias system).

Compare the Jays drafting from 2002-2005 to their competition (I'm only counting solid MLB players and/or highly rated prospects):

Toronto: Hill, Marcum, Janssen, Lind, Bush (Brewers), Litsch
Boston: Lester, Papelbon, Ellsbury, Pedroia, Buchholz, Lowrie, Murton (Cubs)
Yankees: Hughes, Halsey (A's)

Boston is clearly destroying the competition.They draft extremely well and have enough talent/money in upper management to field a great MLB team despite making some mistakes (Lugo). The Yankees make up for lack of drafting with international signings, and they can always break slot during the amateur draft if necessary (Chamberlain). Both Epstein and Cashman are better than Ricciardi in every facet of the game as well, which certainly helps them (hurts us).

Ultimately, the 2002-05 Jays drafts have amounted to one solid everyday player (Hill), a couple of #4-5 starters/relievers (Marcum, Bush, Janssen, Litsch), and one potentially good outfielder (Lind). No stars. No potential stars. Three wasted first round picks (Adams, Purcey, Romero). Ricciardi clearly wanted quantity over quality and he still failed at that because there isn't even quantity.

Now, 2006-07 looks better on paper. However, it becomes Snider vs. Kennedy/Chamberlain vs. whatever Boston drafted (don't know off the top of my head), so it's still not easy.

Boston is clearly destroying the competition.They draft extremely well and have enough talent/money in upper management to field a great MLB team despite making some mistakes (Lugo).

I am repeating myself, but I can't stress it enough - Boston had ELEVEN first round picks in 2003-2006.  That's insane and the one predominant reason that their farm is in great shape.  Without compensatory picks, Boston's farm system would be without  Jacoby Ellsbury, Clay Buchholz, Ted Lowrie, Michael Bowden, Daniel Bard, Kris Johnson and Caleb Clay.

If we only look at the Red Sox own first round pick (or the closest pick to their slot in years where they lost theirs, but gained someone else's), the 2003 - 2006 drafts produced David Murphy, Craig Hansen and Jason Place.  (For those scoring at home, the eleventh first rounder in these years was a 2003 supplementary, now with the Cubs - Matt Murton.)

The Yankees' own first round picks during the same period were Eric Duncan, Philip Hughes, Carl Henry and Ian Kennedy.  Not too shabby.  (As a sidenote, if part of Cashman's rep as a good GM is the selection of Chamberlain in the supplementary round in 2006, why did he pick Ian Kennedy - he of the 3rd starter ceiling - above him?)

The Blue Jays own first round pick during those years were Aaron Hill, David Purcey, Rickey Romero and Travis Snider.  Snider and Hill appear to have long careers as at least solid regulars ahead of them.  Purcey and Romero have struggled with command and injury (hand-in-hand?) problems.  They retain their #2 starter ceiling though, and reasonable project to solid bullpen arms who can get out righties, a la Downs.

My main point is that the Red Sox have had the opportunity to select more top talent in the draft than the Jays - considerably more - and without this ability, would not have the banner system they have (It would be better than the Jays right now, but probably just a middle-tier system.)  I think that to lose Elias Ranked players in free agency during the 2003-2006 period, you'd have to have them on your team.  I think our budget prevented this.  I don't know who left Boston to cause these picks to accrue, but I wonder if their production was inflated by hitting in the Boston lineup (not sure if Elias is based on RBI and runs scored at all, but those are attributable in part to the hitters around you).

I think that the manipulation of the Elias system to gain picks every year is one of the most important functions of a GM.  It's why I wanted the Jays to sign Matt Wise to a one year deal.  If he bounces back at all this year, he'll bring in two first rounders to the Mets in 2009.

The Jays have a number of players that could potentially bring the club compensatory draft picks in 2009, including AJ Burnett, Troy Glaus, Scott Downs and Reed Johnson.  If the 2009 draft resembles the 2007 draft, I'm sure everyone will be lauding the Jays' farm in a few years.

Tampa's 2004 draft (Niemann, Brignac, Davis, McGee, Sonnanstine) has a chance to be a great one.

Davis and McGee look like excellent picks.  Sonnanstine is a back rotation starter, that there may not be room for in a few years.  Niemann has struggled in his development as injuries have held him back.  He was healthy last year and put up solid average numbers at AAA last year.  He's much more heralded as a prospect than David Purcey, as the fourth overall pick in the 2004 draft.  Purcey is 10 months older and was selected 12 spots later in the same draft.  Purcey's injury struggles puts him about a minor league level behind Niemann, but both should open 2008 at AAA.  It should be interesting to see how these once promising  careers progress from here.  I think Purcey has a higher floor than Niemann and a similar ceiling - though Niemann (with a solid year at AAA under his belt) has a better chance at achieving his ceiling than Purcey.

It may just be my perception as a Jays fan, but it seems that pundits are much higher on Niemann than they are on Purcey.  I'm not sure the difference should be that significant.  If it's not just my perception, it's probably due to surounding prospects - Niemann gets lumped as another of the Great Ray Farm, while Purcey gets lumped into the dissappointing Jays farm.

My source (mylegacy)  tells me that Purcey will have a breakout year this year.

As for Brignac, he had a down year statistically, but scouts are still fairly high on him.

My main point is that the Red Sox have had the opportunity to select more top talent in the draft than the Jays - considerably more - and without this ability, would not have the banner system they have (It would be better than the Jays right now, but probably just a middle-tier system.)  I think that to lose Elias Ranked players in free agency during the 2003-2006 period, you'd have to have them on your team.  I think our budget prevented this.  I don't know who left Boston to cause these picks to accrue, but I wonder if their production was inflated by hitting in the Boston lineup (not sure if Elias is based on RBI and runs scored at all, but those are attributable in part to the hitters around you).

Why do the Red Sox get penalized for getting extra draft picks? If Ricciardi offered arbitration to Delgado after 2004, then the Jays would have gotten a chance to draft Ellsbury and Buchholz (among others). In reality they didn't (for various reasons) and lost Delgado for nothing. The Red Sox lost Pedro and Lowe, and got compensated for it. That's the whole point of compensation. If you want to discount compensational picks, then we can't praise Ricciardi for drafting Lind, Ahrens, Jackson, Cecil, Eiland, and Magnuson. That's seems a bit unfair.

I don't think the budget prevented offering arbitration to anyone over the years. I know people will point to Delgado, but if my options were Delgado for one year and $16 million (worst case) or Hillenbrand, Koskie, Schoeneweis, and Koch for $12 million (or whatever it was), then I'd take my chances on some team signing Carlos. Ricciardi didn't take that risk, and he paid for it. He let Escobar go (bad move) but got compensated for it (Lind and Z. Jackson). He traded Stewart instead of letting him go and got Lilly out of it eventually. I can't think of any other major FA off the top of my head, outside of the 2006 crop.

The point is, the Red Sox were smart enough to accumulate the extra picks, and made great use of them. That should be praised.

The Jays have a number of players that could potentially bring the club compensatory draft picks in 2009, including AJ Burnett, Troy Glaus, Scott Downs and Reed Johnson.  If the 2009 draft resembles the 2007 draft, I'm sure everyone will be lauding the Jays' farm in a few years.

If they draft good players with the extra picks, then yes, the Jays system will get more praise. That's the idea.

SK in NJ, I don't think you read my post very carefully.  You're point that seems to be that the Sox have drafted much better than the Jays.  My response is that this is largely due to quantiity of picks.  Quantity of picks is determined by things that occur before the draft.

Why do the Red Sox get penalized for getting extra draft picks?

I'm trying to compare apples to apples.  You're comparing the Sox' eleven first rounders to the Jays' four.  Of course you can draft better if you have three times as many top picks.  The fact that the Sox had eleven first rounders has nothing to do with their drafting ability.  The fact that they have great prospects has much to do with having eleven first rounders.  We're debating how well the Sox do in the draft compared to the Jays.  I've given the Sox credit in my post for managing the number of picks well.  But it's the number of picks - and not the drafting ability of the GM - that is the predominant reason why the Sox draft classes are better than the Jays' from 2003-2006.

If you want to discount compensational picks, then we can't praise Ricciardi for drafting Lind, Ahrens, Jackson, Cecil, Eiland, and Magnuson. That's seems a bit unfair.

We can praise Ricciardi.  We can't give him an edge for drafting better than Epstein though, just because he had more picks.  We can't look at the Jays five picks and say Ricciardi did a better job drafting than Epstein because he got five first rounders and the Sox only got two.  That speaks to the manipulation of the Elias rankings and the luck of offseason player movement, not the quality of drafting.  Again, by considering only each team's own first rounder, I've tried to compare apples to apples when measuring drafting ability/success.  (It's not perfect either, due to Toronto's advantageous drafting position during those years.)

I don't think the budget prevented offering arbitration to anyone over the years.

It may have.  But that's not what I said.  When you have the budget advantage that the Sox and Yanks have over the Jays, you have a higher quality of players on your team and more ranked (Elias) players on your team and thus, a greater ability to manipulate the Elias system by signing "B" and lower free agents who are better than your "A" free agents.

The point is, the Red Sox were smart enough to accumulate the extra picks, and made great use of them. That should be praised.

Absolutely.  I thought I made the point quite clearly that it is an important function of the GM to manipulate the Elias system to accrue picks.  Doing so, I indirectly praised Epstein.  Now I will directly praise him so there can be no misunderstanding.  I think Theo has done a magnificent job in acrruing ELEVEN first round draft picks in three years.  He is likely my favourite GM in baseball.

If they draft good players with the extra picks, then yes, the Jays system will get more praise. That's the idea.

It seems the idea was to compare the Jays draft haul to the Sox draft haul and then make a determination of the drafting skills of Ricciardi versus Epstein.  I prefer to also consider the fact that over the period of 2003-2006, the Sox had eleven top picks versus the Jays' four, when making this determination.  It's only fair.  Epstein may still be better, but the evidence is not conclusive (Murphy, Hansen, Place versus Hill, Romero, Snider), given the placement of the picks in the first round.

Most of the picks of the Jays and the Sox over the past five years had at least 10 slots between them.  The only exception is 2003, with Aaron Hill and David Murphy.  Also in 2007 the Jays selected Cecil(38), Jackson(45) and Magnuson(56) while the Red Sox selected Hagadone(55) and Dent(62).

Perhaps we could compare the careers going forward of David Murphy and Aaron Hill, and of Trystan Magnuson and Nicholas Hagadone for a tiny bit of insight to the relative drafting abilities of Ricciardi and Epstein.

I'm trying to compare apples to apples.  You're comparing the Sox' eleven first rounders to the Jays' four.  Of course you can draft better if you have three times as many top picks.  The fact that the Sox had eleven first rounders has nothing to do with their drafting ability.  The fact that they have great prospects has much to do with having eleven first rounders.  We're debating how well the Sox do in the draft compared to the Jays.  I've given the Sox credit in my post for managing the number of picks well.  But it's the number of picks - and not the drafting ability of the GM - that is the predominant reason why the Sox draft classes are better than the Jays' from 2003-2006.

The problem with that reasoning is Boston's compensation/late picks are better than Toronto's first round picks. Have the Jays drafted anyone that is better than Buchholz (42nd pick in 2005)? Papelbon (114th pick in 2003)? Pedroia (65th pick in 2004)? Lowrie (45th pick in 2005)? If the only player JP has ever picked that ranks similarily to those guys is Snider (and that's debatable), then how is drafting ability even a question? I'm comparing Toronto's best pick (14th overall) to guys picked anywhere from the supplemental rounds to the fourth rounds, and Boston still comes out on top (mainly because Snider is only in A-, but still).

Quantity isn't an issue in my book. If Epstein only had one pick in the first round each year, maybe his philosophy changes and he picks different guys. The fact that he had so many picks may have influenced how he went about it. That has to be factored as well.

IMO, the draft is the draft, regardless of how many picks you have. If the Jays had 6 extra picks in 2009 (thanks to AJ, Glaus, and Downs), that doesn't necessarily mean they'll get players better than the one or two guys Boston and New York get. Quantity gives you better odds of a player or two panning out, but when ALL of them are panning out, then quantity doesn't become much of an argument when comparing it to teams with fewer picks.

The problem with that reasoning is Boston's compensation/late picks are better than Toronto's first round picks.

This is not a problem with my reasoning - it was part of my reasoning.  I explained it as a limitation to the evaluation.  All I'm saying is it's difficult to compare drafting skills and not as clear cut as it appears.  It only appears to be clear cut largely because of an 11-4 advantage in the number of picks available.  It's not a drafting skill to have eleven picks.  They have chosen well - I don't refute that.  Perhaps if the Jays also had eleven picks in those three years, they'd still have a less impressive farm than the Sox, but it would likely be less conclusive.

Then you cherry pick four draft picks that were better than anything else the Jays chose ahead of them in those years.  Thus, I presume you conclude that Ricciardi is inferior to Epstien at drafting.  I would argue, it's not so clear cut, since Epstein also had the opportunity to choose those players with earlier picks and did not.  Does he not get penalized for these huge oversights because he had eight second chances at getting them. 

I would argue it's easier to draft when you have multiple picks because you can take some risks with higher upside to them.  Ricciardi did not have this advantage until 2007, Epstein had nine first rounders in two years.  Of course he could afford to gamble.

All I am saying is you can't just look at the state of the two farms and conclude that Epstein is far better at drafting than Ricciardi.  You have to look far deeper than that and it is not as clear cut as it would appear at first blush.

If you're going to argue that having seven extra draft picks is a talent evaluation skill - which you appear to be saying with the statement 'a draft is a draft - then I simply can't debate against logic like that.

In fact, regardless of your logic, I've made my point.  It may be - likely will be - misinterpreted, but I've said enough.

By the end of 08 we'll know much more about the Jay's prospects. As I see it: Aherns, Cecil, Eiland, Yo Chavez, Tolisano and Jackson all could be VERY SPECIAL. I've listed them in the order I'd expect them to be if ALL reached their potential. IF, most of them are special the Jay's system will move from the low-middle of the pack to the upper levels of Minor League systems.

In addition to Snider, and the above, there are at least a dozen others in the system that should at least make it to the show with us or someone else.

IF, most of the list at the top flame out then JP's drafting strategy and results will both have been a failure.

Moises Sierra is not on the list, but has plus-plus outfield arm strength and raw power.  He loves Snider - thinks he projects to an average corner outfielder defensively with an arm that projects to average for a right fielder.

One thing he said about Snider that I've heard in a few places is that everyone sees the numbers he puts up, but when you actually see him play, you come away very impressed.

It's apparent from Matt's reviews that 2008 is going to be an important year for Romero, Purcey and Patterson - three players who had significant injury problems in 2007 that stalled their development at AA.  All three returned for decent AFL campaigns.

I really don't get what people see in Patterson. He hasn't put up an OBP above 327 at any level since he beat up shortseason as a 22 year old.

You make it sound like that was so long ago.  It was 2005, and his OBP was .386.  In 2006, his OPB was low - perhaps attributable to the two new levels he played at that year, Hi A and AA, or perhaps attributable to his ability.

In 2007, Patterson had his arm shattered in ST.  He was impressing the Jays coaching staff last Spring, up until this point.  He was due to be out three months, but was back by April 30.  It has been speculated that he played with a fair bit of discomfort throughout the year, as the bone healed. 

In close to 100 ABs in the AFL, his OBP was .348.

Eddy noted that of Tolisano, Ahrens, Jackson and Eiland, Tolisano could make the quickest leap to the majors, with defence being his rate-limiting step.  He said the other three all have greater upside.

Wow Gerry, that is probably one of the worst comparisons you can make for a pitching prospect.  Do they really not like Cecil?

Milton has no place on an MLB Roster right now, if he keeps playing, he'll probably become the pitching HR king.