In the second paragraph, you write, "It all comes down to not correctly valuing Richards, Shoemaker or even Santiago for that matter. Richards is one of ten best pitchers in baseball, Shoemaker isn't a fluke he's a legit #3, Santiago posted an ERA at 3.30 after his promotion from AAA..."
Then, in the third paragraph, you state that the source of the article is not acknowledging Weaver's and Wilson's prior success. I'm not sure I follow your logic here. In one comparison, you seem to believe prior success should be factored, but in the case of Richards, Shoemaker and Santiago, you appear to discount that logic and affirm that they are incredibly undervalued and prior success be damned.
I'm not sure that one can have it both ways. The logic train seems to take a departure. Either we use prior success in all cases or discount it completely. I honestly don't know what Richards, et. al. will do this year. I'd like to believe that they wil find the same success, but until I see a "track record", I think the jury is still out. Thus the #12 rating.