Add new comment

...Some folks are unwilling or incapable of using the average part of their rating spectrum to actually mean average. :)  Have you ever noticed that when people grade prospects, they say a grade C prospect is a guy who is literally uninteresting org-depth fodder?  To me...a grade C prospect is an interesting, average prospect...a guy with an average chance to hit the big leagues (read...very small chance. :) ).  To me a C starting pitcher in the big leagues is an average one.
So I give Rowland-Smith a C+ (he'll be a little above average IMHO...think 105 ERA+ that's weighted down by lots of homers and helped by few walks and a low BABIP).  I give Vargas a D+...that means I think he's a somewhat below average MLB starter.  Think 85 ERA+ mushy.  Lots of HRs and a HIGH BABIP to go with the HRs.  He's tricksy and fights hard, but the talent just isn't there for him to be an MOR kind of guy.
And yes...I think Olson - as a starting pitcher - is utterly worthless until he proves otherwise.  When you make out a major league depth chart, you have to go by what they'll gie you in the next 12 months....not by potential.
As for Snell...get me Snell TOMORROW...forget this Vargas nonsense.  When he gets to Seattle, he's my man...and I tell him so.  He's a B with question marks...if he gets his groove on, he's a B+ or A- easily.  Before 2008 and the depression of playing for the league's most pathetic franchise NOT in DC, he was a 125 DNRA+ pitcher hard on the barrelhead.  You can count those on one hand in each league.  He's a TOR if he gets back to that.