SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 9, 2017 1:55:44 GMT -5
The facts right now are that Barnes had the look of a starter more than Houck does. There's a reason why most draft experts think Houck is a future reliever. There's a reason why guys a lot smarter than us ripped the pick live during the draft. -There is nothing stating that Barnes has looked better as a starter than Houck (this is in fact your personal opinion, don't state it as fact) and there's no actual evidence that Houck can't start. -Houck and Barnes both have pitcher's builds that can probably withstand a 200 innings workload (Houck needs to develop to that workload in time). -No one "ripped" the Sox for picking a pitcher who fell to them after many picked Houck to be a top 10 pick earlier in the college season. -Many scouts are actually "torn" whether Houck can start or be a reliever. The development of his secondary pitches will be the determination of that evaluation. Secondary pitches can be discovered or developed over their minor league careers (Papelbon being a prime example of that). Rule number one with pitching prospects is that you ALWAYS start them until they PROVE they can't be as successful as a starter versus being a reliever. It's funny because in that Matt Barnes thread, you were wrong for all the right reasons about Matt Barnes. Now you could be wrong or even right about Houck for all the wrong reasons. Instead of making 5 minute evaluations and trying to be right all the time, just state what you're hopeful for and what you're skeptical of. Make even silly comparisons like I did with Papelbon (no two players are EVER the same). Just don't state what the Sox should or shouldn't do, because they aren't going to probably listen to what you want them to see do when it comes to Houck in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 9, 2017 6:16:48 GMT -5
How do you compare Groome, Mata, and Houck against Anderson E. no one want to touch this one?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 9, 2017 6:28:42 GMT -5
How do you compare Groome, Mata, and Houck against Anderson E. no one want to touch this one? I'll try. In my very unprofessional opinion, I'd compare them as healthier than Espinoza. Now that the obvious is out of the way, I'd say Espinoza has/had a higher ceiling than the other three. He was 18 years old putting up good K/BB numbers against competition a lot older than he is and more importantly he had the pure stuff to be great, a guy you could project atop of a rotation. The biggest question with Espinoza was about his build and if he'd hold up, which right now looks like a huge question mark. Guys do come back from TJ surgery and succeed, but now he's lost about two years of development. He could still come back, still be youngish, and pitch extremely well if his stuff returns. He's a big question mark, though, at this point, but he has the highest ceiling. Groome is a guy who can be a top of the rotation pitcher as well. He's got a better build. There were questions about his makeup although I don't see what the problem was as of yet as far as he goes. He doesn't have Espinoza's fastball, but he's got an excellent curve. My guess is he becomes a #2 if he develops as hoped for. Mata is an 18 year old kid putting up very impressive numbers against older competition. His stuff isn't as eye opening as Espinoza or Groome, and his initial projection was as a #4 type starter, but at this, that's kind of meaningless as he continues to pitch well. At this point I think it's more of a let's see how far this kid can go kind of thing. What he's doing is really eye opening at this point. We're not talking about putting up a good stat line. This kid is pitching quite well against competition much older than him. Houck is a question mark, as far as does he become a starter if he can get a better 3rd pitch or is he a potential high leverage/closer? Until we the see the answer to this question we don't know exactly what he is with any amount of certainty. He has time to develop but obviously out of college he's not as young as those other pitchers. I'd think we'd see Houck when he's about 23/24 somewhere around 2020? Like Barnes he could go either way, but likely he's a pitcher who will be a mainstay on the staff, but we're just not sure as what. And those our my very amateur opinions.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 9, 2017 8:50:43 GMT -5
Yes, I would give him more than 10 innings, that's why I said two years. I had to say that 5 times now. The facts right now are that Barnes had the look of a starter more than Houck does. There's a reason why most draft experts think Houck is a future reliever. There's a reason why guys a lot smarter than us ripped the pick live during the draft. They had spent a ton of time researching and studying these players. Give him a couple years to prove people wrong. If he doesn't move him to the bullpen. At this point he's more of the prove he can be a starter, than fail at being a starter type player. You'd have moved Carlos Carrasco too, right? Max Scherzer? Both those guys had plus fastballs, questionable durability, and hit some non-negligible command problems at some point in their development. Barnes had #2 starter upside - the fact he didn't get there gives us the benefit of hindsight. The red flags in his profile were less severe than Carrasco's, for sure. If Houck has a 2018 that resembles Barnes' 2012 (and it's not crazy, given how highly he was regarded heading into the 2017 college season) then he's very, very likely a Top 50 prospect and nobody is talking about moving him to the bullpen for a couple years after that, even if he hits some snags in 2019. One thing I'm noticing in hindsight about Barnes as I dig into his stat line and development: If the Red Sox hadn't placed him conservatively at Greenville, where he dominated hitters that he should have been dominating, I wonder if we'd have thought of him differently? He was #1 on our rankings for a short time in between Middlebrooks' graduation and Bogaerts' ascension. Every pitcher is different and all, but I do hope they challenge Houck at Salem next year unless there's some ultra-specific benefit about Greenville (whether it's a coach they want him to spend some time with or pitch they want him to work against weaker hitters).
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 9, 2017 9:03:38 GMT -5
How do you compare Groome, Mata, and Houck against Anderson E. no one want to touch this one? Espinoza was shorter than any of them. Barely six feet tall. Does not have the typical starters build.
|
|
|
Post by 1toolplayer on Aug 9, 2017 9:18:08 GMT -5
Still is shorter, he had TJ, he didn't die.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Aug 9, 2017 9:27:16 GMT -5
Still is shorter, he had TJ, he didn't die. I meant as a Red Sox prospect. Anyhow he does not have the usual "starters physical profile." Six foot v. six-six, six-five and six-three.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 9, 2017 9:41:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Aug 9, 2017 9:53:56 GMT -5
It's hard to get an accurate judge on size from the stands even in the GCL but in 2015 when I saw Espinoza, he appeared a bit shorter than 6'. The 170 listed seemed about right. The game I saw, he was as high as 99 on the gun with fellow GCL players saying that he had hit triple digits...amazing at 17-18. In subsequent years the reports I recall had his velocity some ticks less. If all readings were accurate, maybe these were signs of impending injury.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 9, 2017 13:41:34 GMT -5
The facts right now are that Barnes had the look of a starter more than Houck does. There's a reason why most draft experts think Houck is a future reliever. There's a reason why guys a lot smarter than us ripped the pick live during the draft. -There is nothing stating that Barnes has looked better as a starter than Houck (this is in fact your personal opinion, don't state it as fact) and there's no actual evidence that Houck can't start. -Houck and Barnes both have pitcher's builds that can probably withstand a 200 innings workload (Houck needs to develop to that workload in time). -No one "ripped" the Sox for picking a pitcher who fell to them after many picked Houck to be a top 10 pick earlier in the college season. -Many scouts are actually "torn" whether Houck can start or be a reliever. The development of his secondary pitches will be the determination of that evaluation. Secondary pitches can be discovered or developed over their minor league careers (Papelbon being a prime example of that). Rule number one with pitching prospects is that you ALWAYS start them until they PROVE they can't be as successful as a starter versus being a reliever. It's funny because in that Matt Barnes thread, you were wrong for all the right reasons about Matt Barnes. Now you could be wrong or even right about Houck for all the wrong reasons. Instead of making 5 minute evaluations and trying to be right all the time, just state what you're hopeful for and what you're skeptical of. Make even silly comparisons like I did with Papelbon (no two players are EVER the same). Just don't state what the Sox should or shouldn't do, because they aren't going to probably listen to what you want them to see do when it comes to Houck in the first place. No, that's based off scouting reports and what the majority of baseball experts said. After both players drafted the so called experts were higher on Barnes starting. It makes sense as Barnes had better off speed pitches. A couple people started listing Houck pre-draft so I did some research. I kept seeing the same thing pop up most likely a reliever. Hence why I said before the draft nope, pass. Did you not watch the draft live?? The MLB expert totally bashed the pick live, it did happen 100%. Chris even made posts about it, because the board went crazy. It was the most negative opinion on any pick that night. Something along the lines of a future reliever that has 1.5 pitchers. But the slider comes and goes. Spent large amounts of time throwing only his fastball because that was the only pitch he had at times. Said he is getting drafted this high because of the promise of his freshman year, but he has gone backwards since then. Scout pre-draft and after the draft weren't torn. Has the look of a future reliever. Has a chance to start if he can get back to what he did as a freshman. He also did fall, he was basically drafted were he was ranked. I agree, try him as a starter. See what happens. Maybe the Red Sox and there great staff can really help Houck. My point was I wouldn't give him 3-4 years unless he showed you something. The game is changing. The value of a very good reliever and a 4/5th starter are getting closer. Starters are going less innings, meaning the bullpen is becoming more and more important. Nevermind things like the fangraph article saying elite relievers are undervalued. I would like the Houck pick if he became the next Barnes, it would be a good pick. I was wrong about Barnes years ago because we needed starters. I was also new to studying prospects and advanced stats. Followed the Red Sox for years, but didn't get into advanced stats till joining this board in 2013. What I've learned is that WHIP is very important, something I didn't pay attention too years ago. Now not every player is the same. The thing is you can get a great idea about a College guy starting after 2 years in pros and 3 years in College. That is a good amount of data. Either he is improving or he isn't. You can play the odds or just dream that the Joe Kelly's of the world figure it out one day. Sure it happens, but it's the outliers. It is a fact that the majority of players that struggle with mechanics, repeating there deliveries and maintaining there stuff inning after inning while starting won't just figure it out at age 24 or 25. Houck is a guy that currently has like 1.5 pitches that he trusts to throw in games. He has a long way to go to be a great starter prospect. The guys with 3 or 4 good pitches that struggle to maintain stuff while starting, are the guys you dream on. So if in 2 years Houck has 3 good pitches or is getting close . We can debate it then. He just has a long way to go. I will state what I think the Red Sox should do. It's my opinion, be it right or wrong. Has nothing to do with me being right or wrong. Only time will tell. If I'm wrong. You can all bash me and I will be happy. I hope I'm wrong about this, I really do. It does not though change the facts of the majority of Houcks scouting reports. Those are facts, not my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 9, 2017 13:59:47 GMT -5
Yes, I would give him more than 10 innings, that's why I said two years. I had to say that 5 times now. The facts right now are that Barnes had the look of a starter more than Houck does. There's a reason why most draft experts think Houck is a future reliever. There's a reason why guys a lot smarter than us ripped the pick live during the draft. They had spent a ton of time researching and studying these players. Give him a couple years to prove people wrong. If he doesn't move him to the bullpen. At this point he's more of the prove he can be a starter, than fail at being a starter type player. You'd have moved Carlos Carrasco too, right? Max Scherzer? Both those guys had plus fastballs, questionable durability, and hit some non-negligible command problems at some point in their development. Barnes had #2 starter upside - the fact he didn't get there gives us the benefit of hindsight. The red flags in his profile were less severe than Carrasco's, for sure. If Houck has a 2018 that resembles Barnes' 2012 (and it's not crazy, given how highly he was regarded heading into the 2017 college season) then he's very, very likely a Top 50 prospect and nobody is talking about moving him to the bullpen for a couple years after that, even if he hits some snags in 2019. One thing I'm noticing in hindsight about Barnes as I dig into his stat line and development: If the Red Sox hadn't placed him conservatively at Greenville, where he dominated hitters that he should have been dominating, I wonder if we'd have thought of him differently? He was #1 on our rankings for a short time in between Middlebrooks' graduation and Bogaerts' ascension. Every pitcher is different and all, but I do hope they challenge Houck at Salem next year unless there's some ultra-specific benefit about Greenville (whether it's a coach they want him to spend some time with or pitch they want him to work against weaker hitters). I have no idea about those guys, I haven't studied and followed them for years. It's certainly case by case, depending on the player. I will say they are more of an outlier than the norm. Do we keep Owens till 29 and hope he pulls a Randy Johnson or play the odds? I do remember when Detriot traded for Max the D Backs were ripped for a horrible trade. A lot of people were very high on Max. One thing I like about DD is that he seems to be very aggressive with moving players up and challenging them. I love that. It will certainly help when judging players. Look at Mata they were very aggressive and it paid off . It's why I loved the Ockimey promotion. Let's see what we have. Moving players slowly will certainly help certain players. It could though make certain players look better than they might be. Beating up on much younger competition. I would start Houck at Salem. If they don't, I would want a very fast promotion. Let's see what we have.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 9, 2017 14:44:34 GMT -5
I am sorry Chris I seem to have offended you AGAIN. I have read sox prospects. Sorry I guess I will just read posts and not make any comments.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 9, 2017 15:23:39 GMT -5
Ryan what exactly did you mean by compare? When they entered the system or right now? Future potential ? The chances they reach it? What they most likely become? There is a ton you could compare. RedSoxChamp gave a very good review of what they are right now. Espinoza, Groome, Mata and Houck in that order for me too.
Thing is when they entered system you could really debate if Espinoza or Groome was the better prospect. I would say 1A and 1B, Houck would be #3 and Mata #4. Some might have Groome #1, Espinoza #2, I could see that. It's hard because of the age difference in which they entered system.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 9, 2017 15:39:52 GMT -5
I am sorry Chris I seem to have offended you AGAIN. I have read sox prospects. Sorry I guess I will just read posts and not make any comments. I wasn't offended at all! Quite to the contrary, I was just providing a starting point - that's why I referenced the fact that there have been a number of times recently on here and on Twitter where I've referenced information available on the site and the response was that the person didn't even know that information was here. I also tried to make an explicit point that I was just trying to be helpful. Not sure how that failed to translate. Also, in re-reading, by "Have you started here?", the "here" meant the below pages, not the website generally. You wouldn't be the first poster who came to the forum asking about things without reading the site at all. You asked a question, then bumped it up when nobody responded, so it seemed like you were looking for information. I was providing it is all. As Umassgrad notes, you asked a really open-ended question. You're far more likely to get a response on this forum if you are more specific.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 9, 2017 15:50:21 GMT -5
I don't think it's been greatly discussed (perhaps I'm mistaken) but the largest concern I have about Houck from scouting the stats is that he didn't seem to show improvement (statistically) between his Freshman and Junior seasons. All 3 of his college seasons appear very similar.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 9, 2017 15:54:12 GMT -5
Ryan what exactly did you mean by compare? When they entered the system or right now? Future potential ? The chances they reach it? What they most likely become? There is a ton you could compare. RedSoxChamp gave a very good review of what they are right now. Espinoza, Groome, Mata and Houck in that order for me too. Thing is when they entered system you could really debate if Espinoza or Groome was the better prospect. I would say 1A and 1B, Houck would be #3 and Mata #4. Some might have Groome #1, Espinoza #2, I could see that. It's hard because of the age difference in which they entered system. Ranked by how they were thought of at the time they entered the system, it'd be Groome ... Houck .. Espinoza ............. (and way more dots) Mata. Talking purely on-field talent, Groome was a 1-1 candidate. I go Houck as the first-round college draftee over Espinoza as a top 10 international prospect because even top international guys are a huge crapshoot. I regard Flores more favorably now than we thought of Espinoza when he signed, and I still don't have Flores ahead of Houck. Mata was known by absolutely nobody when he signed (hence the $25k bonus), so he's a distant, distant fourth and a great scouting find by the Sox. But that's not really a fair question because of the different backgrounds. If Espinoza or Mata were from the U.S., and we were comparing the four players based on their relative standing at age 18, it'd probably something like Espinoza (electric stuff that made him a top 50 prospect after last season? Gotta think he goes 1-1 in last year's draft, right?), Groome, Mata (stuff isn't electric but he's excelling in the Sally? seems like he's gotta be a first-round pick this year, right?) ........ Houck (drafted in the 12th round by Toronto, doesn't appear to have been on BA's top 500, #458 on Perfect Game, not even close to the other three). As for right now, if I were to insert Espinoza into the SP rankings, he'd probably be #2 in the system, although he versus Groome would be close for me after the Tommy John procedure and my concern about his holding up to a starter's workload. He'd definitely be #3 at least though.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 9, 2017 15:58:44 GMT -5
no one want to touch this one? Espinoza was shorter than any of them. Barely six feet tall. Does not have the typical starters build. Espinoza was also as recently as a year ago labeled by some scouts/prospect services as the best pitching prospect in the minors. None of those guys are there yet.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 9, 2017 16:42:09 GMT -5
All depends on how you rank prospects. Everyone does it different. Some combination of upside, floor and the % they reach the ceiling or floor, the risk factor.
If you take an equal amount of upside, floor and risk I can see Houck being #2. Or rated over Flores. If you're looking more at upside though, I can see Espinoza and Flores being ranked over Houck. My personal opinion is I value upside more. Might be all my years of following Keith Law. I would rank Flores over Houck. Just because he is like Espinoza. A special international player, maybe the best catching prospect every. Based on upside I can see a case being made that he could be #4 on the Red Sox list. It's why I feel our other two top 30 internal guys are ranked a little low.
Doesn't mean I'm right, that's just my opinion. They way I judge prospects.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 9, 2017 17:19:21 GMT -5
Espinoza was definitely not thought of nearly as highly as either Groome or Houck at the time he signed, if we're literally talking historically what the truth was. I don't really think it's a debatable point. Espinoza was BA's top pitching prospect on the international market that year, but consider that Espinoza wasn't even in the BA handbook's top 31 for the system the year he signed: forum.soxprospects.com/post/128214/thread. I don't know where we debuted him here, but it was outside the top 20 at least. I want to say he and Acosta were next to each other in the 30s? Even the posters in this forum, in their rankings voting, had him no higher than 17th, and most outside of the top 20: forum.soxprospects.com/thread/2595/2015-season-community-rankings-voting . To be clear, I'm not saying he needs to have been in the top 10 like Houck, as that was a deeper system than this one, but he wasn't even close. Groome was a top 100 prospect the year he was drafted and could've gone 1-1 if not for off-field issues. Houck was a first-round pick and while he isn't a top 100 guy, would probably be a top 10 guy in most farm systems, save for maybe the top 3 or so elite ones like the White Sox that are loaded to the brim with top 100 guys. Espinoza wasn't even in Baseball America's top 31 for the Red Sox, in what was admittedly a deep system. But think about that. I don't think it's a debatable point if you like Houck as much as you do. To clarify my point on Flores, it was that he is far more highly regarded at time of his signing than Espinoza was at his, which I thought we could all agree on. Seems like you agree it's debatable between Houck and Flores, right? I agree with that and wouldn't begrudge anyone who likes Flores more. But if you agree it's at least close between the two, it's tough to argue that Espinoza would rank ahead of Houck as valued at the time they turned pro.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 9, 2017 17:27:28 GMT -5
Anybody else think houck has some sort of hitch in his delivery?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 9, 2017 18:02:02 GMT -5
m.mlb.com/news/article/82719548/red-sox-sign-international-pitching-prospects-christopher-acosta-and-anderson-espinoza/I'm all about upside. Espinoza was talked about as a top of rotation player the moment he signed. Just like with Groome. Sure Groome was the better overall prospect, mainly because of the age difference they entered the system. There upside though was the same. One just had more risk. That's why I have him over Houck. I don't see top of the rotation upside with Houck. Houck has a lot less risk. See Acosta, but less upside. I wouldn't argue with Houck being rated as a better overall prospect. I just prefer and look more at the upside when they enter the system. Do you see Houcks upside as top of the rotation or more mid rotation type? Maybe I'm low on Houcks true upside. He would just have to improve a ton to be top of rotation type player.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 9, 2017 22:06:37 GMT -5
m.mlb.com/news/article/82719548/red-sox-sign-international-pitching-prospects-christopher-acosta-and-anderson-espinoza/I'm all about upside. Espinoza was talked about as a top of rotation player the moment he signed. Just like with Groome. Sure Groome was the better overall prospect, mainly because of the age difference they entered the system. There upside though was the same. One just had more risk. That's why I have him over Houck. I don't see top of the rotation upside with Houck. Houck has a lot less risk. See Acosta, but less upside. I wouldn't argue with Houck being rated as a better overall prospect. I just prefer and look more at the upside when they enter the system. Do you see Houcks upside as top of the rotation or more mid rotation type? Maybe I'm low on Houcks true upside. He would just have to improve a ton to be top of rotation type player. I see houck as a future closer for us,
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 10, 2017 3:58:23 GMT -5
no one want to touch this one? I'll try. In my very unprofessional opinion, I'd compare them as healthier than Espinoza. Now that the obvious is out of the way, I'd say Espinoza has/had a higher ceiling than the other three. He was 18 years old putting up good K/BB numbers against competition a lot older than he is and more importantly he had the pure stuff to be great, a guy you could project atop of a rotation. The biggest question with Espinoza was about his build and if he'd hold up, which right now looks like a huge question mark. Guys do come back from TJ surgery and succeed, but now he's lost about two years of development. He could still come back, still be youngish, and pitch extremely well if his stuff returns. He's a big question mark, though, at this point, but he has the highest ceiling. Groome is a guy who can be a top of the rotation pitcher as well. He's got a better build. There were questions about his makeup although I don't see what the problem was as of yet as far as he goes. He doesn't have Espinoza's fastball, but he's got an excellent curve. My guess is he becomes a #2 if he develops as hoped for. Mata is an 18 year old kid putting up very impressive numbers against older competition. His stuff isn't as eye opening as Espinoza or Groome, and his initial projection was as a #4 type starter, but at this, that's kind of meaningless as he continues to pitch well. At this point I think it's more of a let's see how far this kid can go kind of thing. What he's doing is really eye opening at this point. We're not talking about putting up a good stat line. This kid is pitching quite well against competition much older than him. Houck is a question mark, as far as does he become a starter if he can get a better 3rd pitch or is he a potential high leverage/closer? Until we the see the answer to this question we don't know exactly what he is with any amount of certainty. He has time to develop but obviously out of college he's not as young as those other pitchers. I'd think we'd see Houck when he's about 23/24 somewhere around 2020? Like Barnes he could go either way, but likely he's a pitcher who will be a mainstay on the staff, but we're just not sure as what. And those our my very amateur opinions. Thanks for the info. I agree with most of this. Have not been as high on Espinoza as this site. Always thought he was too small to throw that hard for very long without TJ surgery. I guess I had Houck rated higher than most on the site but now see him in a little better light.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 10, 2017 4:01:24 GMT -5
Ryan what exactly did you mean by compare? When they entered the system or right now? Future potential ? The chances they reach it? What they most likely become? There is a ton you could compare. RedSoxChamp gave a very good review of what they are right now. Espinoza, Groome, Mata and Houck in that order for me too. Thing is when they entered system you could really debate if Espinoza or Groome was the better prospect. I would say 1A and 1B, Houck would be #3 and Mata #4. Some might have Groome #1, Espinoza #2, I could see that. It's hard because of the age difference in which they entered system. It was meant as being open ended. Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 10, 2017 4:06:46 GMT -5
All depends on how you rank prospects. Everyone does it different. Some combination of upside, floor and the % they reach the ceiling or floor, the risk factor. If you take an equal amount of upside, floor and risk I can see Houck being #2. Or rated over Flores. If you're looking more at upside though, I can see Espinoza and Flores being ranked over Houck. My personal opinion is I value upside more. Might be all my years of following Keith Law. I would rank Flores over Houck. Just because he is like Espinoza. A special international player, maybe the best catching prospect every. Based on upside I can see a case being made that he could be #4 on the Red Sox list. It's why I feel our other two top 30 internal guys are ranked a little low. Doesn't mean I'm right, that's just my opinion. They way I judge prospects. Good never looked at rating prospects quite like you are. upside, floor, and % they reach the ceiling. Good system. Now I see why you like some prospects more than others. Chavis for one.
|
|
|