"It's a publicity stunt by him and his people. I'm tired of talking about it. I'm fed up. He's history."

-- Bob Feller, commenting on the possible reinstatement of Pete Rose

I opened my e-mail this morning, to find my daily orders from the International Sportswriter Illuminati Conspiracy. All sportswriters have been ordered to weigh in on the burgeoning movement to restore gambler and tax cheat Pete Rose to the good graces of baseball. So in order to avoid losing my valuable ISIC credentials, I need to say something about this, although I find the entire topic distasteful. Like Bob Feller, I'm tired of talking about it, and will keep it brief.

First, I will admit that even when I was a kid, I disliked Pete Rose as a player. If recent poll results are accurate, I'm apparently in the minority about that. No matter. The whole "Charlie Hustle" thing just seemed phony to me, even though I generally like the scrappy hustling type player. So perhaps I'm less than objective here.

With that in mind, I've read all the Rose arguments, both pro and con, with as open of a mind as I can manage, and I still believe that

1) Pete Rose bet on baseball, and likely on games involving his own team;

2) In so doing, Pete Rose violated the most important rule in the sport, the rule that everyone from the highest batboy to the lowliest commissioner knows: gambling is the highest crime within the game of baseball;

3) Gambling on baseball is a death penalty offense.

I think there is a lack of historical perspective among Rose's supporters. Betting on games is a death penalty offense not because of some misguided idealistic moral purity, but because gambling nearly destroyed the game in the early part of the last century. In my opinion, reinstating Pete Rose is an insult to baseball. It is an insult to tens of thousands of honest baseball players, from Hall of Famers like Bob Feller down to the hordes of utility scrubs. It is an insult especially to those like Commissioner Landis who fought hard to restore integrity to the game in the 1920s.

I believe that if Bud Selig reinstates Rose in any way, he'll be committing an outrage even greater than his contraction scheme of last year. That's just my opinion; you're free to disagree. But don't expect to change my mind.

OK, now let's go to more pleasant topics. Let's dip into the Down on the Farm Mailbag.

Igor S. from Zagreb, Croatia writes: I'm writing you this from, would you believe it, Croatia. Yes there are maybe a dozen baseball fans even here. I am in a very advanced fantasy league (20 teams) where each team has 15 prospects on its roster. I'm wondering whether Travis Blackley of Seattle or Matt Bruback of the Cubs are worth keeping. Also, I don't see Ivan Cruz of the Cardinals mentioned anywhere. Is he a prospect at all? Would you please write a couple of comments about these guys?

How cool is it that people in Croatia are becoming baseball fans? I can now add Croatia to the list of countries I've received e-mail from, right there with Israel, Taiwan, Germany, India, and Cambodia. How I love the internet.

Travis Blackley: Blackley is an Australian, signed by the Mariners as a free agent in October of 2000. He made his debut in '01, pitching well in the Northwest League with a 3.32 ERA and 90/29 K/BB ratio in 14 starts. He moved all the way to the California League in '02, and had another good year: 3.49 ERA in 20 starts, with a 152/44 K/BB mark and just 102 hits given up in 121 innings. He hasn't gotten a lot of attention yet, but certainly looks like a good prospect to me, with fine control and strong power ratios. Plus he's just 19, and has already proven he can handle A-ball. I'd keep him; he looks like a major sleeper prospect.

Matt Bruback: Bruback is a 6-7 right-hander, signed by the Cubs as a 47th-round pick back in 1997. He made slow progress through A-ball, but mastered Double-A in 2002, going 9-7, 3.16 in 28 starts, with a very fine 158/48 K/BB mark in 174 innings. He gets less attention than other hotter prospects in the Cubs system, but his Double-A numbers are impressive, and in some systems he'd get a lot of praise as a hot prospect. I'd hold on to him, too. He could reach the majors in '03 and surprise some people.

Ivan Cruz: Cruz is a minor league veteran, 34 years old, who first reached Triple-A in 1991. He does have major league power, no question, and is as good a player as some guys with regular jobs, but he's too old to consider a prospect, and his window for playing time will always be suspect.

Lyle H. asks: What can you tell me about Bobby Madritsch, the left-hander the Mariners signed out of the Northern League (Winnipeg)? The M's have already put him on their 40-man roster. What kind of prospect is he?

He looks like a good one. Madritsch was originally a sixth-round pick of the Reds back in 1998, from Point Park College in Pennsylvania. He hurt his arm in '99, got released, then drifted to independent ball. He had a terrific year for Winnipeg in the Northern League this past season, setting a league record with 153 strikeouts. He's got legitimate major league stuff, featuring a 92-95 mph fastball. At 26 years old, he's not young, but that's OK; the fastball speaks for itself. He has good command, too. I imagine he'll get a full trial in spring training. His exact role is uncertain at this point, but he is definitely someone to keep track of in the coming season. He's got a great story, has significant talent, and is worth rooting for.

Dan B. writes: What happened to Joel Guzman of the Dodgers this season? He was a shortstop assigned to rookie ball and I read that he was compared to A-Rod at one time. Just wondering what happened to him this season and what does his future look like?

Any time a team signs a hot shortstop prospect, he gets compared to A-Rod. I think it is incredibly unfair to make comparisons like that, but it's a habit as old as baseball.

Guzman was signed out of the Dominican Republic in July of 2001, and many scouts said he's one of the best prospects ever to come out of that country. He was just 16 when he signed. He has all the athletic skills that scouts like: speed, strength, balance. They think he'll develop top-notch skills on both the offensive and defensive sides of the game.

Guzman was assigned to the Pioneer League this year, and hit just .252. He fanned 54 times in 43 games, obviously an unacceptable ratio. On the other hand, he did draw 18 walks, and showed a bit of power potential with eight doubles, two triples, and three homers. His defense is very rough, but that's to be expected at this point. The key thing is that Guzman did OK at age 17 in professional baseball. He's got a lot of work to do to turn his tools into skills, so I wouldn't expect to see him in Chavez Ravine tomorrow. His outlook is the same as it was last year: great natural ability, with some indication he'll be able to refine it, but no guarantees just yet.

John Sickels is the author of the 2002 Minor League Scouting Notebook, and is now working on the 2003 Baseball Prospect Book. His biography of Bob Feller will be published next spring. He lives in Lawrence, Kansas, with his wife, son, and two cats. You can send John questions or comments at JASickels@aol.com, or you can visit his homepage at JohnSickels.com.