Thanks for your responses. Boy Jeenius: If that is the case, wouldn't the jump to AAA be the toughest? That would be where the hot 23-year-old prospect who has always gotten by on superior talent and tools runs into the wily veteran with big league experience. That difference in level of experience is perhaps more pronounced than any place after R+ ball, where highly-drafted players with 3-4 years of college experience (e.g., Cole Gillespie, Chris Errecart) often compete against 18- or 19-year kids. This difference is especially pronounced when Helena plays a team such as Missoula or Casper, whose parent clubs have no AZL or GCL team and therefore supply them with very young squads. It seems logical that a 22-year-old with 3-4 years of big-time college experience would feast in such an environment and then struggle more in A-ball and above where the field is more level . (Hence my surprise that Chuck Caufield, a 39th-rounder in 2006, is doing as well in West Virginia as he did in rookie ball.) But why, then, is AA so frequently picked out as the true proving ground? --Is it, as suggested above, simply the result of funneling? AA is the place with the greatest number of prospects with the least roster filler? --Is it because we are quite logically drawn to really young prospects, like Inman, who are competing in AA against players several years older than they are? --Or is "the jump to AA is the toughest" just something that people have repeated for so long without their being any real validity to it. Sorry if I am rambling in only my, what, 6th post. It's like 95 degrees down here, and typing with the air conditioning blowing on me seems like the best course today. Tim