I agree generally with Nolson except that his 25 is for one year's recruits and is a totally different situation (no minor leagues). I'd open it up to a Top 50 which would also somewhat coincide with KG's five stars where 1 or 2 per team is the norm.

Using that definition and assuming eligibility (that the prospect hasn't exhausted MLB rookie status because of circumstances other than level of play):

I'd give Bogaerts, Middlebrooks and Ranaudo clear shots IF they perform at levels consistent with their tools.

I'd give Checchini a better shot than Swihart because that's too aggressive for a first pro year high school kid not named Harper. On the other hand I don't think Cecchini will be 'five star' in 2012 either but 'four star' is a high probability and more distant future fives for both isn't inconceivable.

I think Top 50 is above Barnes tools, particularly when in the context of Chris Mellon's reports which were excellent but not in the Top 50 excellent category. He'd have to be maintaining 2-3 MPH faster than XST numbers or have total command of his secondary pitches.

MPaz10 wrote:

---

I think I meant 4 star

Is OK, it's a term which has definitive meaning only to the person using it. Most of the posters have so far, said how much cream they are measuring before they named names. Interesting topic with a slightly different twist than projecting your next year's top prospect list because it also implies potential for future stardom in the majors.

ADD: Using Weiland as an example, somebody might think that he could be a top 3 by the end of the year. If he has a dominant 2012 at AAA, that could happen. Yet, I doubt if anyone would think he's a future top of the rotation major league pitcher. That's just not in the cards but, he still would have major value.