So this seems like a good first question because I can start by clearing up a misconception or two. First, the 2015 list is not just (2014 ranking + 2015 performance). I start from scratch each year, and if that means correcting a mistake or two (or ten) from the previous year's list, so be it. If I tried to use old lists as a basis for future ones, I'd just be perpetuating old errors. There's value in being consistent, but too much so is just stubbornness. Second, nothing about this list is purely performance-based; the rankings are based in scouting, in physical tools and baseball skills, as much as they are in performance, probably more so. As for Peraza, a second baseman with no power and a .316 OBP is not someone who belongs on a top 100. The reports from the past year were worse than the year before, and now with two years gone from shortstop, the odds of him being able to return there seem quite slim.

I'm assuming extended spring training.

Full reports on all 30 teams, including top tens, notes on other prospects (ranging from three to fifteen more per system), 2016 impact prospects, sleepers, and prospects who've slid, will all be up next week.

Riley was not a first-round talent in June, with questions about his hit tool, especially his bat speed. He was just OK in the GCL, then had 30 great games in Danville. Why would he be a top 100 guy? It's awfully quick - with no new favorable scouting information - to say he should have been a top 15 pick in the draft, which would be the implication of a top 100 ranking.

Strong groundball guy, still learning to pitch and develop some of his offspeed stuff, especially the changeup. Don't scout the stat line. His stuff is good and he's only been doing the baseball thing full-time for three years now.

Reliever. I don't put anyone I expect to be a reliever (like Josh Hader) on the top 100.

Not comparable.

There's nothing to tweak in his mechanics - his delivery is very easy, almost effortless, but I think the result is that he doesn't truly repeat the arm swing pitch to pitch enough for real command (or control, in this case). You can't really fix that. Changing a pitcher's arm stroke is almost all downside.

Obviously not or I wouldn't have ranked him there. He's not frail.

Actually, he did play some professional innings in Cuba. If we're ignoring guys who've never played in organized ball, then should Kolby Allard (all of six innings after signing) be off the list too?

No, because I think they will have enough pitching depth to trade for whatever they need. And Davidson's still got more power than he's shown to date - he's pretty young and can flash that plus raw in BP.

He's gone backwards. Someone altered his delivery, so he's lost a lot of power. His fastball is down, his slider went from a 70 to a 50, and he has zero deception. That's why he got whacked around in the big leagues - hitters see the straight four-seamer and hit it. Back in college, he finished way more over his front side, got more tilt on the slider, was touching 99, and even had a better changeup. I don't know what caused the alteration, but I saw it and so did every scout I asked about Gray for these reports.

Well, you could ask those other folks why a true shortstop who's a 65 runner, rarely strikes out, and has a strong history of hitting for average (at U of A and two summers on the Cape) isn't a top 100 prospect. I think that's a pretty valuable asset myself.

It's a rather significant issue. It's left field or bust for him.

You're preaching to the choir here. The real problem is a one size fits all philosophy. Moving guys on the rubber because you think all RHP should be on the 3B side is a mistake in concept. Don't move a guy who isn't having trouble, and don't try to make them all look the same.

If we ignore that he's older than dirt, he still wouldn't have made it. I don't think he's a regular.

As low as 37? Seems like a pretty good ranking to me, especially for a guy who has never thrown 150 innings in any regular season since signing in 2009. Great stuff, zero evidence of durability.

The org rankings reflect everyone I'd call a prospect in each system. That ranges from 13 guys in the worst system (Angels) to probably 25 or so in the best systems.

It's that after two years off the mound, we don't really know what his stuff will look like when he returns, or when he will be able to handle a regular workload. I like him quite a bit, but I have to be realistic that not many guys miss two years and come back to be durable starters.

Kopech might have made the list if he hadn't been suspended and had shown he could hold that stuff all year. He was off the charts in short stints in instructs. Definite candidate to be top 50 next offseason.

Can we drop the delusion that leaving a player off the top 100 is "no love?"

I've seen MLB's because Jonathan Mayo and I talk a lot and we've been swapping stories about prospects for the last two weeks. I don't think that's crazy (nor would I sit here and tell you Jonathan's crazy because he might see it and he is legitimately crazy and might come after me).

He's ready, but he's not close to Cueto's quality or Samardzija's potential. Blackburn's a really good fifth starter candidate, but it's great command of very average stuff.

Of course I did. And my hat is off to anyone who gets the reference.

Austin Barnes had a legitimate argument to be on the list this winter.

Don't think he'll hit for enough average/OBP to be more than a fringy regular. Big tools except the tool that counts the most.

Nobody's seen him play - and his brief time in the CNS wasn't great (plus I think it was two years ago). My gut on his upside was not enough to just stuff the guy into the top 100. Yes, it's my list, but it's grounded in way more than what my eyes see.

Big debate on whether he's going to have power or not. Could easily be in top 20 next year. It's not so much power as very hard contact, and sometimes that ends up being big power anyway (like mah boy Goldschmidt, who doesn't even have much loft in his swing). I think we're looking at .300ish with a solid OBP, 12-15 homers, lots of steals, good defense in center.

I've had guys go from off list to top ten before. It's part of the fun - and yet another reason why I don't look at my own older lists when doing this.

Again, he did not "drop off." He can really hit, but he's LF only without much power, defense, or clear OBP beyond the batting average. Good prospect, limited ceiling.

I don't think they're very similar beyond speed and position.

A lot of player development folks emphasize throwing one fastball type to develop command, then allow the reintroduction of the other later on, or they add a two-seamer because the pitcher is struggling to avoid contact with the four-seamer.

Three.

Yeah, i'm already getting plenty of that along with complaints that you have to actually pay dollars to read my work.

Not close. And ... no.

ERA is a terrible way to evaluate a pitching prospect, especially one that young and raw.

Before we knew anything about his elbow, I thought he had ace ceiling. I'll stay with that for now, since all we really know is that he had TJ and is healthy and throwing.

To be totally fair, Doug Melvin was at the helm for most of the improvements to the system, and Stearns has added to what was already in place.

Just my gut - and I'm way out of my league here - but I think the GOP's powers that be will rally behind Kasich at some point and try to push him over Trump to be the eventual candidate, based on "electability." (Is that just the "pitchability" of political writing? God, I feel dirty.)

When asking a question like this, give me reasons why I should have ranked those players where you want them. The obvious, if flippant, answer is that I thought the 100 players I did rank are better prospects.

The ability to catch a ball cleanly and make the transfer. Some guys just have hard hands and can't receive (at any position) well.

He was in the majors.

Possible if rather optimistic. This is a big year for him - he's still more potential than production, although the tools are impressive.

Thing is, if he didn't have this injury history, he would probably be entering his third or fourth year in the big leagues.

Tools are there. Great swing. Very athletic kid. Can even run a little. Throws well. Receiving is not great. But definitely performance supported by the scouting report.

yeah but I like you more than the other guy who was before you.

Signing Gallardo makes no sense. He's just not that good any more, certainly not enough to give up a first-round pick and pay him. He doesn't make them a playoff team. Both guys still probably don't make them a playoff team.

The best players tend to start out as shortstops, and shortstops who can actually play the position and also project to hit have the highest ceilings because of how low replacement level is there. The same would be true of catchers, but there isn't much catching talent in the mid- to high minors yet.

My nickname has been "Klaw" (like "claw") for about 25 years now. So it's two syllables, Klawchat.

As I said earlier, the org rankings are not merely a reflection of who's on the top 100, but the depth throughout each team's system. Texas has thinned out after trades and promotions, while Milwaukee has restocked and Pittsburgh just stays loaded.