Eric R. asks: The Yankees' platooning of both right and left field with Raul Mondesi, Rondell White, Shane Spencer and John Vander Wal hasn't really worked out. They have played at an average level (and that's stretching it). How close are Marcus Thames and Juan Rivera (returning from injury) to helping out next year? Will those young guys eclipse the veterans? Or will they make a trade or sign a free agent?

The veterans, as you point out, have all been pretty mediocre, or worse, this year. Mondesi: .777 OPS, White .644, Spencer .700, Vander Wal .780. A healthy Rivera can match those numbers, for the minimum salary, and would likely exceed them once he settled in.

	Juan Rivera Outfield New York Yankees Profile
	2002 SEASON STATISTICS GM HR RBI AVG OBP SLG 20 1 6 .311 .348 .443

Thames is more problematic. He hit 13 homers in 107 games in Triple-A, and maintained good strike zone judgment. But he hit just .207, and .207 at Columbus is about .185 in Yankee Stadium. I haven't completely given up on him, but he needs to get his act together in Triple-A before getting a shot in the majors. Obviously.

Rivera's comeback from the knee injury has been remarkable. In a perfect world, he would get a full shot at a job next year. As I said, he would match, and probably exceed, what the veterans did this year, for a lot less money. Even the Yankees have to worry about finances, especially if they want to reduce their luxury tax burden. Whether he gets the chance or not remains to be seen, of course. Spencer and Vander Wal are overexposed as regulars; both are more useful as bench bats. White has been a favorite of mine, but he's clearly slipping. I don't hate Mondesi as much as many statheads, but he's too expensive for what he produces.

If it were up to me, Rivera would get the job next year. But, Brian Cashman is still the Yankees' GM, not me.

John C. writes: Do you think Lew Ford's good play at Double-A and Triple-A this year has resurrected his prospect status, and also given the Twins a crowded outfield?

Ford started this year at Double-A New Britain. He thrived, hitting .311 with 15 homers and 17 steals in 93 games, which earned him a promotion to Triple-A. He continued hitting for Edmonton, batting .332 in 42 contests.

Ford is a line-drive hitter with good gap power. He steals bases more with instinct and intelligence than pure speed, and he has decent command of the strike zone. His defense is solid. I don't think he has enough power to be an above-average regular player, but as a fourth outfielder and platoon player, he could do good work. Minnesota has lots of outfielders, so Ford faces stiff competition, another reason not to expect him to be a regular.

Payroll constraints may force the Twins to trade one of their hitters this winter, which might increase Ford's chance to get a roster spot next spring. We shall see.

David G. asks: Recently I watched a Baysox game in Bowie. The last six innings were pitched by Jeff Wilson and Aaron Rakers. When I looked at the stats for each in my scorecard, I saw that both were averaging a strikeout an inning and had a K/BB ratio ranging between 2-1 and 3-1. But then I looked at their ages and saw that they were 26 and 25. Do their ages mean that their good looking stats are an illusion or that they simply won't have as high a ceiling as a younger player?

Rakers and Wilson split the closer role at Double-A Bowie this year. Both pitched well. Rakers had 10 saves, with a 2.06 ERA and a 45/12 K/BB ratio in 48 innings. Wilson also had 10 saves, with a 2.18 ERA and a 79/31 K/BB ratio in 91 innings. Both also had good H/IP marks, 39/48 for Rakers and 72/91 for Wilson.

You are exactly right about age being a factor in where they stand. Rakers is 25 and Wilson is 26. Both have previous Double-A experience, and neither throws hard enough to wow scouts. I wouldn't go so far as to say their strong seasons are entirely illusionary. Both pitched well this year. But both will need to prove themselves in Triple-A before getting a shot in the majors, and at this point, neither projects as more than a middle-relief pitcher if they do get a chance in the Show.

Which does not mean they won't be useful pitchers. If I were the Orioles, I'd give both of these guys non-roster invitations to spring training, and be willing to give them decent shots next year. Baseball is supposed to be a meritocracy, after all. Too bad it doesn't always work that way.

Keven O. writes: Recently the Milwaukee Brewers brought up a right-handed pitcher named Ben Diggins. Ben went to school in the same town I did and I try to follow him as much as possible. It just seems to me that jumping for Double-A all the way to the Show, is a big jump. What do you think of him and his potential at the higher levels?

Diggins came to the Brewers in a trade with the Dodgers this year, for Tyler Houston. He's been roughed up in his initial major-league exposure for Milwaukee, which is not unexpected given his limited Double-A experience. He had just seven starts in Double-A before his promotion, though he pitched very well there (1.91 ERA).

At his best, Diggins is an intimidating force on the mound, firing 95-mph fastballs from his large 6-7 frame. But his velocity is inconsistent. At times, he's been clocked at 89 mph rather than 95, and he doesn't have enough movement or deception on his pitches to survive when his fastball isn't fast. The problem is erratic mechanics. When his delivery is off, his velocity drops, and he gets hit. He also needs to improve his overall command, especially of his breaking ball.

Diggins needs another year in the minors before being ready to help the Brewers. He is probably better suited to relief work than starting.

A Braves fans writes: Rethink your comments on Trey Hodges. They were easy and predictable. It's very easy to pick a future master if he throws 95 mph and strikes out 10 per nine innings. What takes more intelligence and analysis is to compare Hodges to where Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux and the Aussie rookie were at that point in their careers. The Braves are the masters at teaching pitchers how to pitch.

I wrote about Hodges in the July 27th mailbag. You can find the complete comment by clicking here. I wrote that, although he was having a fine season for Triple-A Richmond, that his low strikeout rate and lack of a dominant fastball implied that he would not "take the major leagues by storm."

I don't see any reason to change that assessment.

Hodges is 24 years old, and has five major-league innings to his credit. At age 24, Glavine had 646 major-league innings under his belt. Maddux had 911. The Aussie Rookie, Damian Moss, was in Triple-A last year at age 24, recovering from arm trouble. Basically, I don't see how comparing Hodges to any of those three pitchers tells us anything. None of the three are comparable to Hodges. Maddux and Glavine were already veterans at the same point, while Moss has an injury history that Hodges does not have.

I would also be remiss if I did not point out that Maddux knew how to pitch long before he became a member of the Braves.

Hodges finished 15-9 with a 3.19 ERA in 28 starts for Richmond. He posted a 116/56 K/BB ratio in 172 innings. The walk rate is nice and low, but his strikeout rate is too weak for me to get excited about him. He is a Grade C pitching prospect, someone with some skills (control, command, durability), but also with some weaknesses (not a hot fastball, low strikeout rate). I don't see any other way to read the statistical data and scouting reports. Hodges could be a useful pitcher, a Cory Lidle or Rick Reed type, but he could also get stuck in Triple-A for the next 10 years.

John Sickels is the author of the 2002 STATS Minor League Scouting Notebook. He is currently writing a biography of Bob Feller. 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 johnsickels.com.