Is there reason to be thrilled with the minors?  Sure.  Reason to be optimistic?  Absolutely.
But, in the end, the Ms haven't actually developed a "decent" hitter completely from scratch since about AROD.
For all the optimism and enthusiasm - there was LOTS of optimism about Adam Jones, and Clement, too.
Jose Lopez is the lone holdover from the Bavasi batter development era - .241/.272/.333 (.605) - with a grand total of 7 HRs this year as the #1 returning deep threat.  Just fyi, Yuni Betancourt has 15 HRs this season with KC, and currently has a .267/.289/.432 (.721 line). 
Saunders shows lots of good signs - but a .221/.295/.392 (.686) line is only something to smile about when your team OPS+ is 77.
Seattle still hasn't actually PRODUCED a Jason Heyward (.877 OPS) or McCann (.871 OPS) or Martin Prado (.848 OPS).  Given the historical track record of the past decade, the odds of ANY of the hitting prospects becoming a perennial All-Star is between slim and none.
The landscape is certainly looking fertile - and the crop is planted.  But, Seattle has been watering with Brondo for a decade.  So, I think it's a bit early to start tossing the salad.

To use code jargon to make my point. :)
Z did take part in the development of a Brewrs system that produced a whole bunch of all-star bats.  And guys that weren't progressing well under Bavasi have suddenly started progressing now.  Like Saunders, for example.  Not saying that the Mariners will start running all-star line-ups any second now...it's not a given...but I am saying that the regime is different...the first thing Z did was fire *49!!!* employees in Bavasi's player development and scouting corps  and hire a bunch of his guys from Milwaukee.

"In Justynius' 12 candidates for the top 100, fully 11 of them are hitters..."

I forgot to mention, I'm strongly in favor of this strategy for two reasons:
(1) Hitters are safer than pitchers. Pitchers tear labrums. Their MLB growing pains are more costly to a team than a hitter's. The Braves, A's, and to a certain degree Cubs all tempted everyone with a big homegrown 3/4 in their rotations, but I think that was more chance than strategy. You set out to do that, and you wind up with more 0's than you can afford. An ace SP is probably more valuable than a big bat, but the amount of wasted talent trying to find that ace will not outweight what you could have gotten from hitters.
(2) Teams with extreme ballparks should always build with the reverse. Hitters will be prejudiced against Safeco Field. They're less likely to sign with the M's, and could potentially be more expensive. It's easier to attract free agent pitching talent, you could possibly get them at a discount, and the pitchers you do have will overachieve.

Yep.  Draft bats early, draft pitching often.  That way you don't waste as many early picks on injuries, and keep the farm stocked.

 
What's the worst thing that happens if you have excess bats?  You trade em for pitching - and theoretically it's pitching that has already survived some of the early bumps that flatten the careers of good pitching talents all the time.
 
Sometimes there ARE no bats lingering around where you draft that you want to bite on...but that's rarely the case.  There's always a prep hitter who's worth it.  Can you find him?  I dunno.  Maybe your choice is more Beau Mills than Jason Heyward, but if you FIND Heyward he's not likely to blow out his shoulder and be useless to you anyway.
 
That's the problem with pitchers - you can absolutely be right about their talent and ability to get out major league hitters...and injuries may invalidate your correct assessment.
 
If I was running a baseball team, I'd stock up on early round hitters, draft boatloads of pitchers later to keep the pen fresh with arms, and snag starters in trades and FA.  Will all those later round picks I should have enough arms to make up a decent BOR, especially pitching in the Safe.  "All" I'd need is my top 3 starters.  *laughs*
 
We have Felix for several more years yet, which makes for 2 slots.  Pineda is around - you can make him BOR if you like, but either way it's 1-2 starters that you're looking for in that scenario, and pitchers are volatile.  Bet the upside and wait for the regularity of a well-put-together batting lineup to kick in and make you competitive every year with a high-leverage pen.

If we were the Rangers and had their home park I might think differently - trying to get someone who can pitch there successfully is tough.  But here?  Grow the bats first.
~G

Can't argue with that.
  

Top draftpicks: Sam Hays (blew out arm), Garciaparra (soccer player), Mayberry (didn't sign), Adam Jones (good so traded him), Tui (3rd round pick), Clement (worst pick of the DECADE), Morrow (doing fine as a starter), Aumont (bad, limited upside pick), Fields (see Aumont)...
 
The Mariners have been through distinct phases:  The hatred of the strikeout, the obliviousness to the power of the walk, etc.   We had our theme drafts, like our crafty left-hander draft that resulted in...nobody. 

 
Even when we FOUND talent (Choo, Cabrera, Jones, Sherrill, Soriano, etc) we traded it away, and were terrible about getting talent in return, with Felix being the main exception to that rule.  Just atrocious talent evaluation to go with our talent development inadequacies.
 
I can't lay those organizational failures at Jack's doorstep.  He wasn't here.  You're right, we haven't been able to develop hitters here. It just has NOT happened.  Doesn't mean it won't now, and the first step is getting decent hitting talent to develop in the first place, which we seem to be doing.  When Greg Halman and his ridiculous Ks and lack of walks is your top hitting prospect multiple years running there's probably a talent-acquisition problem to begin with.
 
The Brewers haven't been able to get over the hump with their pitching, even with all the bats that Jack added to (and developed in) the minors.  That's a concern to me as we go forward.  But rebuilding the offense is paramount right now, and it's a skill he's already demonstrated in spades in his previous job.
I feel good about trusting the salad he's preparing for me and believing it's not poisoned like the last ten years of salad have been.

~G
 

I completely agree that Z isn't Bavasi.  And I, too, am optimistic - in large part due to the success Z had while in Milwaukee.
The true measure of an organization isn't "can you do X"?  The true measure of a great organization, (IMO), is "can you REPEAT X?" 
At the moment, Seattle has a lot of 'potential', and precious little realization.  Heck - I was the guy lauding the strong rotation in 2010 because of the same basic 7 to get 3 situation after Felix and Lee. 
12 to get 5 sounds great to me, too ... unless it eventually winds up as 12 turned into 1.  The 1 would be an improvement over the past decade, (but certainly wouldn't create a dynasty).
Yes, it's going to be great if Ackley, Smoak and Franklin turn into Howard, Utley, and Young.  If you end up with Jacobsen, Cantu and Wilson Betemit ... not so much.  (and I would be the first to agree that the former is more likely than the latter).  But, since Seattle has been the place where hitting careers go to die for so long, I think some restraint on the visions of the future is called for.
I mean - seriously, over the past decade, Pittsburgh ... the losingest franchise in history has produced from within:  Aramis Ramirez, Jason Bay, Ryan Doumit, Nate McClouth, Andrew McCutchen, and Neil Walker.  They churn out a major league bat every other season - (and then let them walk as soon as they cost more than a buck ninety-seven).  Seattle has what?  Ibanez?  Does he even count, since he didn't get good until after spending a few seasons with KC learning how to hit?
Okay, there have been some successes AFTER leaving Seattle, (Jones, Choo, Cabrera), which only goes to prove the point that something has been bad wrong in Seattle in regards to DEVELOPMENT, (vs. talent selection).  I hope you're right - and think you're right - that those problems are likely in the past. 
I'm used to an organization that DOES succeed at development.  But, I also understand some of the top specs don't succeed, even in the best of circumstances.  People called Atlanta butt-dumb stupid for trading away Andy Marte when they did.  They obviously saw something ahead of the game.  But, they didn't win every trade, either.  (They rented J.D. Drew and gave up Wainwright and Marquis).  Remember that the Braves traded to get Kotchman (and Steve Merek) for Teixeira - (as Scott Thorman - their #30 pick from 2000 - (picked immediately after Wainwright)- was washing out).  Just fyi, Seattle didn't have a pick in the 1st 3 rounds of the 2000 draft, losing all 3 top picks in FA compensation.
 
 

I think Ackley is a high likely success story -- "probably" a 100-110 OPS+ hitter -- but with a definite possibility of becoming a 130-ish long time all-star.
Smoak, I'm much more nervous about -- I view his profile as one more volatile - certainly a possible Howard-esque future -- but also a possible Brad Komminsk future.
My concern is this.  Under Bavasi, the entire org was directed into a hatred of the strikeout.  Z may have cleaned house - and the new guys "may" have the skills to deal with cerebral prospects, instead of quick-twitch see-ball/hit-ball types.  But, transitions in any organization are typically messy.  It is "unlikely" that the current Ms organization is a finely tuned machine in regards to player development.  I suspect they're headed in the right direction.  How bad the transition friction is - and how much of an impact it'll have on individual player development (in the short term) - is a complete WAG. 
In general, most of the blog-o-sphere castigates Bavasi for lousy talent selections.  But, the number of ex-Mariners who have succeeded is the red flag to me that says - it wasn't the raw talent that was the primary problem.  (And - except for Ibanez - the longer an M stuck around in Seattle, the worse he got - whether he was home grown or imported from somewhere other than Japan).
It would certainly be nice to get a Chipper or Javy Lopez or even a Furcal out of the current Ms crop.  But, as good as the Braves' development has been, they've had to go find 1B bats repeatedly.  Scott Thorman was the last "next great thing".  Ryan Klesko is the cream of the Braves' 1B crops for the past 30 years.  (He made the All-Star team once ... in 2001 ... with San Diego).  Yet, he ended his career with an .870 OPS and 128 OPS+. 
When the EXPECTATIONS get so high, the payoffs always end up disappointing.  I'm concerned when excitement about a nice crop of farm hands, (of which odds say typically 2/3 will utterly fail), is coupled with the word "dynasty" - then perspective may be a bit skewed.  The Marlins, after their most recent raze-and-rebuild cycle had gathered top 10 prospects from all over.
In 2006, the Marlins had 7 of the top 100 BA prospects:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospect...
The Braves had 4 -- they traded to the Texas, (Salty and Elvis), traded Lewer to KC, and Chuck James washed out. 
Yet, in 2010, the Braves are leading the division, while the Marlins continue to struggle to stay above .500. 
Going from the average 3.333 of top 100 prospects to (perhaps), having 7 or 8 guys crack the top 100 list is great.  It guarantees nothing, except extra text in the BA Insider. 

"i think they miss on stanton, matusz, jennings, alvarez, santana."

I think you're wrong on at least two of those. After shaky starts, Matusz and Alvarez are already looking pretty good. They both seem like safe bets to develop into quality major leaguers if they're not there already.

What you say is true, maba ... but, even worse is BA is probably the LEADER in correctly pegging future success.  It's not that *they* are awful - it is that EVERYONE is awful.
This is why I continue to harp on DEVELOPMENT over EVALUATION.  The successful teams don't simply draft talent that magically become Hall of Fames, (though I understand after Griffey, AROD and Unit that many in Seattle would think this is the norm). 
The majority of MLB players were NOT drafted in the top 10 -- they were drafted in the 8th, 12th, 17th, 32nd, etc., etc. rounds.  The actual results are SOOOOO random, that they *ONLY* way to succeed (IMO) is to see to it that every single player in your organization reaches his PERSONAL maximum potential, (whatever that may be).  Because the actual talent is so thoroughly spread out - the organizations that maximize production from each player ARE the ones that churn out all stars.
Yeah - anybody could succeed with Strasburg, (to a point).  But, there are any number of mistakes an org could make, even with an uber-talent that could derail a career, (like via an injury).  Not saying that Washington actually made any mistakes with Strasburg - just saying that you can't ever say with certainty that a player failed *ONLY* because he wasn't talented enough.  Every other year, some age 29 journeyman minor leaguer gets a shot due to injury - and SHOCKS! the planet that he's actually good enough to stick. 
The reality of the situation is the minors are rife with kids good enough to be major leaguers, (some who will never see a single day in the Show), and MLB is rife with hitters that will never bat their weight, and pitchers who will post Olga Korbut gymnastic scores as ERAs.  There's all kinds of biases that are just hard to get past.
Clearly, Seattle has NOT helped many (any?) hitters reach their maximum potential.  Pitchers?  There's another story.  Seattle has a pretty decent history of developing nice arms - (primarily - but not totally - in the bullpen).  The park helps - but it's not like Vargas and Felix are just getting blown up on the road and tossing nothing but shutouts in Safeco. 
You see - it isn't about Seattle maximizing the potential of Ackley and Smoak.  It's whether they can maximize the potential of all 25 guys in Tacoma - the odds of SOMEBODY turning into McCann or Prado increases 12-fold over just concentrating on Ackley and Smoak.

BA is the most well-known, but Baseball HQ is at least five steps ahead of BA on intelligence with prospect evals.

BA actually has the worst turnout ratio among prospect lists for the '09 list, by a large margin.
They are too obsessed with tools. High risk, high reward. They are definetly solid, you just have to realize what they prioritize.

"BA is the most well-known, but Baseball HQ is at least five steps ahead of BA on intelligence with prospect evals."

BA is about 75% scouting, 25% stats - and their reputation has earned them significant intel with scouts and teams that we do not have access to.
Baseball HQ is 100% stats. I'd agree that stats are frequently more accurate predictors than scouting, but at the same time I don't see many profound prospect analyses coming off of that site that you or I would be incapable of ourselves.
Baseball HQ has very little to tell you right now about a Jameson Taillon that you don't already know, or could not deduce yourself. BA will literally be coming out with a book. There's very few lasting prospect resources out there, and none of them with the history, organization, and resources of BA.
Baseball America can tell you, today, where all of the 2010 draft picks and international amateur signings rank among the top prospects in baseball. This will not only be consistent with how the players are viewed by scouts/teams, it's based on input directly from them. Yes, five years from now a large number of those rankings will be wrong. That doesn't mean the information does not have value today.

I think tools scouting completely worthless on first-year guys anyway...BA can tell me who's got the most projectable power or who's got the best foot speed...but I can figure that out long before they reach the majors ANYWAY just by looking at the stats as they progress.  Tools scouting has a place, but I think for FIRST YEAR guys...it's hogwash...I don't waste my time with it.  BA is the best at what they specialize in...tools scouting.  The lack of skill in their projections proves that what they specialize in is worthless to team-building.

...when the tools scout actually demonstrates that his abilities exceed random chance.  Z might be one of those...the rare GM/scouting group combo that can pick 'em better than a random raffle at the group of 500 guys who MIGHT be impact players based on their pure tools.
G_Money is one of them, I'm quite sure.  Why he doesn't have a job as a scout is beyond me.
But the vast majority of scouts are a waste of money...teams hire guys they like to do the scouting and most of them suck at it...sorry.

"I think tools scouting completely worthless on first-year guys anyway...BA can tell me who's got the most projectable power or who's got the best foot speed...but I can figure that out long before they reach the majors ANYWAY just by looking at the stats as they progress"

If that's the case, your idea of the Top 100 prospects is going to omit about 25% of the prospects that belong there. Are you seriously going to tell me the M's, today, value a Greg Halman over a Jameson Taillon?
Most top 100 prospects, especially college players, are not going to spend a significant amount of time in the minors. They're going to spend a very insignificant amount of time at any one level. All minor leaguers have an adjustment period their first month or so at a higher level, so the full data at any one level is not necessarily relevant. Minor league stats are extremely contextualized, really from one team to the next - levels/stadiums can dramaticially influence some players and not others, and the influence is not always significant depending on the specific player. The minor leagues are a time of growth and development; statlines from prior seasons are sometimes not telling at all about a prospect today. Ultimately, you're left with small sample sizes of extremely contextualized data.
Can Nick Franklin catch up to a 95 MPH fastball batting right-handed? What's the likelihood of him staying at SS? How much should we expect him to fill out physically? Will he be a base-stealer in the majors? How's his work ethic? These questions are also important to determining a player's prospect value and cannot be answered by a statline.
BA's scouting is not a bunch of guys gathered around a computer screen watching YouTube videos. I'm not sure if they even aspire to do scouting on their own. All of their scouting reports are coming directly from GM's, coaches, scouts, scouting directors, and player development employees. Their rankings reflect how the prospects are actually valued in MLB circles at the time of the snapshot. A Top 100 prospects list should aspire to do no more (or less) than that, and no one else has been around long enough to build the networks necessary for such an ambition.

...before he can be drafted or signed IFA...but beyond the need for scouting to select the huge crowd of players that are candidates enough to be on a farm team and trying to make the majors, I don't particularly find much use for tools scouting unless you actually do beat the odds and demonstrate skill.  Again...other than picking a legion of guys, from which you hope 4 or 5 make the show (each year)...if your scouts can't find more than the typical 4 out of 60 yeach year...what's the point?  I don't think BA's skill score from year to year is high enough to merit all that much serious attention.

It's a good call - his vaunted eye has definitely fallen way off.
 
Ackley vs. RHP:
AA: .280/.395/.435/.830, 38BB:23K
AAA: .300/.358/.494/.852, 14BB:28K
 
That's a huge swing in eye ratio, no doubt.  Now, most of his walks in AA came in a one month stretch, but he was a 1:1 ratio the rest of the time too.
 
Ackley's power #s in AA: 36% extra-base-hits, 2.7% HR rate

Ackley's power #s in AAA: 36% extra-base-hits, 8.7% HR rate

 
I don't know if he's sacrificing walks to try to hit the ball further, but that'd be my guess.  That's only the difference of a couple of balls over the fence instead of off of it, however, and Ackley's AA numbers are depressed by his atrocious first month of adjustment.
 
I was surprised Ackley was sent to the Fall League again this year instead of being allowed to rest after playing baseball non-stop for a year, but apparently they want him to log as much time at 2B as he can. In my mind that means they're thinking of him winning the job in March rather than next September. I think Ackley needs a lot of work against lefties and needs to walk more than he has in AAA.  Power can come a little later, but this is not the Grade-A season of a guy just clamoring to be promoted.  He's done well - it just hasn't been spectacular.
 
But the guy he's trying to replace at 2B has a 14% XBH and 0.8% HR rate.  The other guy at 3B has a 25% XBH rate and a 5.6% HR rate.  Both guys have atrocious batting averages.  Just replacing Jose or Chone with Ackley saves us millions and will likely net better performance to boot - and that's with Ackley still having areas of improvement.  Jack has to make the call on whether he can make those improvements at the big league level next year.
 
I hope the Ms are patient enough with him (and with Smoak).  Justin seems to be doing much better as of late - I'm looking forward to seeing that performance in the bigs instead of the 1:22 eye he had for us before being sent back down to get his bearings.
 
But whether they start with the big club in April or get more minor league time, we need those two guys to work out.  More Pedroia and Konerko than Figgins and Overbay, if you please.
 
~G