Regarding the SP, I think that most teams in the league would be ecstatic to have "average" in their three and four spots. It's a pretty rare thing to have rotation spots 1-4 filled with average to above-average, and the fifth starter pool will produce something closer to average than abysmal.

It isn't just high school pitching that breaks down and washes out; it's all young pitching in the low minors. That grade isn't saying "Yippee! We're going to be awesome in five years!", it's just noting that the Giants have a lot of low-level pitchers who appear promising. It wouldn't make sense to exclude high-school pitchers from that list.

And if you haven't read Baseball Prospectus's series on the draft, I can't recommend it enough. The anti-HS pitching faction hasn't been around for a couple of years now. College pitchers are about the same risk.

"Two nice pitchers"?  Most of the teams in the league would kill to have "two nice pitchers" like them.  They are two potential aces, Cain has already put up with a nice 2007, and Lincecum looks ready with a 67% Dominant starts (using PQS methodology) in 2007 (top pitchers have over 50%, the elite have over 70%).

And people always look at Lowry as average because he doesn't have overpowering stuff, but he seems to suffer like Rueter did from that in terms of respect.  His ERA has been sub 4.00 throughout his career and he was only over 4 in 2006 because he apparently decided to pitch with pain which eventually DLed him, as his ERA was sub 4.00 going into September, then he got blasted.  Look at how many starters are actually under 4.00 in ERA and you will begin to understand how good Lowry is, particularly if he is our #4 starter.

I'll admit Zito had a horrible year in 2007 with us, but after Bochy made him relieve that one game, in 11 games, he threw 69 IP, had a 3.52 ERA, 1.12 WHIP, 2.0 K/BB (min you want starters to have), 5.9 K/9 (bad, yes), 3.0 BB/9 (max you want pitchers to have).  That's not too far from what he did in 2005-2006 with the A's, adjusted for pitching in the NL where there are easy outs to be had with the 9th spot, the pitcher.  Again, sub 4.00 ERA pitchers are not that common, and he's essentially our #3 starter.  

Lastly, most team's #5 starter are no better than Sanchez, Misch, Correia, and at least Correia has a history of pitching OK as a starter, not great, not good, but good for a #5 starter, I think he has proven that he can be an acceptable #5 starter, look at his stats as a starter with the Giants:  he has a 4.33 ERA with a 1.46 WHIP in 27 career starts.  That's better than some team's #3 starter and he would be our #5.

All in all, we have a great rotation and deserves that A-, which is only a "-" because Lincecum and Zito has to prove that they can do it over a season for the Giants in 2008.

Please note the sig line. Not exactly unbiased.

Overlooked ?

1. Velez might have more upside -- though I don't think that's a given -- but Frandsen is more likely to reach his peak. If Frandsen were in AA/AAA like Velez was last season, I have a feeling he'd be held in higher regard. Frandsen was rushed pretty quickly through the system.
2. Ortmeier was just a name to tack on at the end of the corner outfielder list. He's about a D- as a potential RF and an F as a potential 1B, but that's a post for another time.
3. I think so. Maybe C- would have been better, but there is a huge difference in value between a CF who hits like Winn and a RF who hits like Winn.
4. I don't think Walker is a 1.26 ERA guy or that Wilson is a 2.28 guy (yet), and Chulk isn't guaranteed to come back. Those were three of the biggest contributors to the Fangraphs figure.

Also, a good portion of the Giants' success at the minor-league level has been the pitching, which I give some credit here. And I'll always give credit to the pipeline of young pitching that makes this major league roster even half-interesting.