<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Top 40 Twins Prospects of 2012: 35, 34, 33, 32, 31</title>
	<atom:link href="http://aarongleeman.com/2012/02/20/top-40-twins-prospects-of-2012-35-34-33-32-31/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://aarongleeman.com/2012/02/20/top-40-twins-prospects-of-2012-35-34-33-32-31/</link>
	<description>Baseball news, insight and analysis from Aaron Gleeman</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 19:34:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve L.</title>
		<link>http://aarongleeman.com/2012/02/20/top-40-twins-prospects-of-2012-35-34-33-32-31/comment-page-1/#comment-10214</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve L.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aarongleeman.com/?p=69254#comment-10214</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bullock also struck out 66 in those 50.2 IP, good for a 11.7K/9IP mark, which would have led all Twins prospects...

What bothered me most about it, is the Twins stated their desire to add &quot;power arms&quot; to the system last year, then they sent their best one away in a trade for another low-ceiling-back-end starter.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bullock also struck out 66 in those 50.2 IP, good for a 11.7K/9IP mark, which would have led all Twins prospects&#8230;</p>
<p>What bothered me most about it, is the Twins stated their desire to add &#8220;power arms&#8221; to the system last year, then they sent their best one away in a trade for another low-ceiling-back-end starter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pedro Munoz</title>
		<link>http://aarongleeman.com/2012/02/20/top-40-twins-prospects-of-2012-35-34-33-32-31/comment-page-1/#comment-10213</link>
		<dc:creator>Pedro Munoz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:49:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aarongleeman.com/?p=69254#comment-10213</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TMW beat me to the punch on this, but it is worth noting that Bullock isn&#039;t exactly tearing it up.  Maybe the Twins knew something.  Just saying.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TMW beat me to the punch on this, but it is worth noting that Bullock isn&#8217;t exactly tearing it up.  Maybe the Twins knew something.  Just saying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TMW</title>
		<link>http://aarongleeman.com/2012/02/20/top-40-twins-prospects-of-2012-35-34-33-32-31/comment-page-1/#comment-10201</link>
		<dc:creator>TMW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:51:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aarongleeman.com/?p=69254#comment-10201</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not that I disagree about the Diamond deal with the Braves being a bad one in form and thought process, but it should be noted that Billy Bullock did walk 34 in 50.2 IP last year.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not that I disagree about the Diamond deal with the Braves being a bad one in form and thought process, but it should be noted that Billy Bullock did walk 34 in 50.2 IP last year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://aarongleeman.com/2012/02/20/top-40-twins-prospects-of-2012-35-34-33-32-31/comment-page-1/#comment-10197</link>
		<dc:creator>mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:00:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aarongleeman.com/?p=69254#comment-10197</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is this the most boring 36 - 31 ever?

uhg.
At least the group below this had guys like Williams who are exciting.  What makes this worse?  2 of the guys could make the team.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is this the most boring 36 &#8211; 31 ever?</p>
<p>uhg.<br />
At least the group below this had guys like Williams who are exciting.  What makes this worse?  2 of the guys could make the team.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://aarongleeman.com/2012/02/20/top-40-twins-prospects-of-2012-35-34-33-32-31/comment-page-1/#comment-10193</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:31:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aarongleeman.com/?p=69254#comment-10193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yay for Jairo!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yay for Jairo!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RCG</title>
		<link>http://aarongleeman.com/2012/02/20/top-40-twins-prospects-of-2012-35-34-33-32-31/comment-page-1/#comment-10188</link>
		<dc:creator>RCG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:33:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aarongleeman.com/?p=69254#comment-10188</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[These prospect lists are always interesting to me (no matter who comes up with them) because of all the optimism combined with serious negative undertones.  Lots of expectations, lots of &quot;buts&quot;, lots of underachieving to this point in their careers.  I would be interested in seeing a straight-up Top 40 Twins Minor Leaguers list where players were ranked by their actual output and not their supposed potential.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These prospect lists are always interesting to me (no matter who comes up with them) because of all the optimism combined with serious negative undertones.  Lots of expectations, lots of &#8220;buts&#8221;, lots of underachieving to this point in their careers.  I would be interested in seeing a straight-up Top 40 Twins Minor Leaguers list where players were ranked by their actual output and not their supposed potential.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
