I've updated my website for the winter. You can find it at http://hometown.aol.com/jasickels/page1.html.

It seems so obvious, looking back on the buildup to the Second World War as well as the decisions made during the war, what the best choices would have been. The old 20/20 hindsight thing. But it occurred to me while watching the news today that for all our attempts to learn from history, we are never really conscious of the historical impact of certain events as they happen. Oh, I'm not talking about stuff like Pearl Harbor or D-Day itself; everyone knew those were important milestones. I'm talking rather about the huge group of individual and collective decisions that people made leading up to those events, decisions that shaped history but in ways that were beyond the conscious perception of the actors at the time. I don't know if this is making any sense or not, but I feel that we are in such a period right now. Things are happening in the world, some for the good but many for the bad. I just have a strange feeling in my soul right now that the world in five years will be very different than we can possibly imagine. Disquiet. Maybe I just need some sleep. One thing about history: it is seldom what it seems to be while it is happening.

Let's dig into the mailbag. The first two questions today relate to previous articles.

Jorge A. asks: I believe you left off a key rookie in your article about playoff rookies. Marcus Giles, second baseman for Atlanta, is a rookie and was a key starter in the second half, both defensively and offensively.

Yes, I should definitely have written about Giles. I liked him a lot in the minor leagues, and he has proven he can handle the majors, even though many scouts were skeptical about him early in his career. In that regard he is similar to his brother Brian, another player who was dissed by scouts, but who proved them wrong. Marcus has hit at every level, and I expect he'll produce numbers similar to or better than what he's done so far for the Braves. Of particular interest has been his defense, which was pretty dreadful early in his career. He has worked very hard at improving his glovework, and is at least adequate at second base. I think he'll have a fine career, and will make at least one All-Star team someday.

Sean G. asks: I know you must get just buckets of e-mail from fans wanting you to give more attention to prospects from their teams. One pitcher, though, that I thought deserved a mention in your "Prospects on the Rise" piece was Mets prospect Jae Weong Seo.

Well, not exactly buckets, but quite a few. At any one time I may have 200 e-mails in my box, but I know that many internet writers get 10 times that amount. I read every one, but I don't have enough time right now to answer each question or comment personally. It does give me ideas about what people are interested in, however, and of course I need the fodder for the Down on the Farm Mailbag. None of this would be happening without you, the reader, so keep it up everyone!

Seo made just three starts in 1999 and none in 2000, rehabbing from Tommy John surgery. As you point out, he came back healthy in 2001, reestablishing his prospect status quite nicely. He went 2-3 with a 3.55 ERA for Class A St. Lucie, 5-1 with a 1.94 ERA for Double-A Binghamton, and 2-2 with a 3.42 ERA for Triple-A Norfolk. He walked just 23 batters in 132 innings all season. On the other hand, he fanned just 91, so his strikeout rate was rather low. His fastball is average, but he has a good assortment of breaking pitches, and knows how to pitch.

While most people think it is just a negotiating ploy, many people inside baseball do take the talk of contraction seriously, with Montreal and Tampa Bay being the two most logical candidates for extinction. I think the D-Rays will be around in '02, but who knows about '03.

Miguel O. writes: What do you think of Houston pitchers Tony Pluta, Mike Nannini, and Chad Qualls? I know they're just A-ball pitchers, but each one of them have had pretty good seasons, and I've heard many good things about them. Is the hype legit? Also, what kind of pitches do they throw?

Here are their numbers from 2001:

Name	Team	W-L	ERA	IP	H	K	BB
Mike Nannini	Lexington-A	15-5	2.70	190	176	151	36
Anthony Pluta	Lexington-A	12-4	3.20	132	108	138	86
Chad Qualls	Michigan-A	15-6	3.72	162	149	125	31

All three are legitimate prospects. Pluta probably has the best arm strength, consistently hitting 95 mph and occasionally as high as 98, but he also has the worst control and the most work to do with his breaking pitches. Nannini and Qualls don't throw quite as hard as Pluta, but are hardly soft-tossers. Both can hit 95 at times but usually work in the 91-93 range. Qualls and Nannini both have good sliders, while Nannini has a better changeup. Both also have great control, as you can see from the numbers.

Dynomite asks: How would you rank Oakland first-base prospect Jason Hart? Is he the answer if the A's were to lose Giambi to free agency?

Hart hit .247 with 19 homers for the Triple-A Sacramento River Cats. That's about .230 with 15 homers for Oakland, so no, I don't think he's ready to replace Giambi. Hart did better than that in 2000 in the Texas League, but I see him as someone likely to get stuck with the "Triple-A slugger" label. He has power, but not really enough to play first base in the modern context, and his on-base percentage would be low. Hart might be OK in an emergency, but wouldn't be anything close to a long-term solution. Billy Beane could find someone better for first base if Giambi bolts.

John Sickels is the author of the 2001 STATS Minor League Scouting Notebook. He lives in Lawrence, Kansas, with his wife, son, and two cats. You can send John questions or comments at JASickels@aol.com, or you can visit his homepage at hometown.aol.com/jasickels/page1.html.