I'm curious...if none of these guys or presumably Wil Myers is currently elite, then who is? I just want to be sure I understand your terms.

You guys seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on makeup/work-ethic with these new rankings (or are making a more conscious decision to highlight it) and it seems to be a factor in your reports. Have you done some behind the scenes work on bust-rates/success-rates and if/how they correlate to make-up? Are you grading makeup now in some way?

The use of 'top-drawer' made this one of the best articles I've read in a while

We're would Javier Baez be relative to this group? Baez ranked ahead of Solar on the Cubs list. Is that only because of his lengthier track record?

Re: Bogaerts

I have heard mixed reviews on his defense, both at present and for the future. Seems about half the scouts I ask say he's fringy now, lacking natural actions and needs those because he's only going to get bigger and stronger, rather than quicker.

The other half suggest just what you have suggested -- if he can be Hanley Ramirez, it's OK that he's a 45 glove. Personally, I'd need to get a fresh look.

Ramirez hurt the Marlins defensively at shortstop most seasons and may have been more valuable overall as a centerfielder. Jeter should have been a left fielder four years ago. It really depends on the makeup of the rest of the roster. If the Red Sox have a better defender that isn't a liability at the plate, Bogaerts can go to third base, or even the outfield.

Cromulent,

When I wrote this, the Royals' Top 10 had not been published. Myers is among the elite. This piece was delayed on my end, not BP's.

mattgoia,

One of the clubs I am closest to is the Seattle Mariners, and their staff values makeup more than some, but it's been a growing sentiment around the league for a few years. Those with maturity and work ethic succeed at much higher rate than those that don't, that isn't a surprise, nor a secret.

It absolutely matters, and in many cases allows the players' physical tools to play up. Like with a pitcher's fastball -- if he only throws 89-91, but commands it very well, knows how to pitch and gets good movement, it's going to get a grade above average, despite average velocity.

A prospect's ability to put their tools to use is vital. I grade makeup for the big picture, though I typically do not throw a number on it.

berkoffm,

Baez was considered for this list and in general fits the profile, but I couldn't come to the conclusion that even if he maxes out everything offensively that he's a star. It would help if he stays at shortstop, but even the most optimistic aren't betting on that.

crile2,

I did not realize I used 'top-drawer' which might make it even more awesome. It just kind of flowed out of the tips of my fingers.

It may be that a shortstop in the 15-HR, .350-OBP, .280-BA, etc., class looks like a "superstar" today, but I think it should be kept in mind that it hasn't been that long since there were multiple guys who were approximating that kind of production at the position, not all of them "superstars" as we now think of the term. The 2006 shortstop BVORP tabulation reachable through the statistics page is something to drool over, but calling Rafael Furcal and Carlos Guillen "superstars" rather stretches the term, in my opinion. Furcal in particular looks like a pretty good perfect-world projection for Lindor (extending to the switch hitting). He is and has been a very good player. Superstar? Not so sure.