PDA

View Full Version : Baseball America rates Reds top 10 prospects



mound_patrol
11-29-2005, 12:25 PM
1. Homer Bailey
2. Jay Bruce
3. Travis Wood
4. B.J. Szymanski
5. Chris Denorfia
6. Rafael Gonzalez
7. Miguel Perez
8. Tyler Pelland
9. Joey Votto
10. Travis Chick

Went on to say the Reds have made some good picks with these younger pitchers, but are a few years away from being able to contribute.

ED44
11-29-2005, 01:09 PM
So, Chick is the better of the two we got for Randa? I thought Germano would be on there somewhere...

Red Leader
11-29-2005, 01:15 PM
So, Chick is the better of the two we got for Randa? I thought Germano would be on there somewhere...

Germano= closer to the majors.
Chick= higher "ceiling"

M2
11-29-2005, 01:18 PM
Scary list. Exactly one guy has done anything of note in the high minors.

Though for the first time in four years the Reds' first round draft pick from the preceding spring doesn't make #1 on the list. He's #2. Mind you, I'd put him at #1.

15fan
11-29-2005, 01:25 PM
Scary list. Exactly one guy has done anything of note in the high minors.

Though for the first time in four years the Reds' first round draft pick from the preceding spring doesn't make #1 on the list. He's #2. Mind you, I'd put him at #1.

Yep.

Reading that list, it came through loud & clear that the cavalry won't be arriving any time soon...

Milezinni
11-29-2005, 01:44 PM
At least there is a cavalry.

M2
11-29-2005, 01:46 PM
At least there is a cavalry.

More like a bunch of boot camp cadets. Denorfia's the only guy who's ridden a horse.

15fan
11-29-2005, 01:49 PM
At least there is a cavalry.

I was actually trying to make the point that the cavalry won't be arriving any time soon because there is no cavalry.

Period.

Ravenlord
11-29-2005, 01:49 PM
how does Guevara avoid this list? does he have one good pitch, and one or two pitches needing major development?

M2
11-29-2005, 02:00 PM
how does Guevara avoid this list? does he have one good pitch, and one or two pitches needing major development?

I figure 2006 is the make or break year for Guevara as a prospect. If he tools on AA hitters like he's done in A ball, then he's got to gain prospect status.

Then again, it's pretty hard to justify keeping Guevara off a prospects list that has Miguel Perez on it. For all we know Guevara might even have a better stick than Perez.

Ravenlord
11-29-2005, 02:08 PM
I figure 2006 is the make or break year for Guevara as a prospect. If he tools on AA hitters like he's done in A ball, then he's got to gain prospect status.

Then again, it's pretty hard to justify keeping Guevara off a prospects list that has Miguel Perez on it. For all we know Guevara might even have a better stick than Perez.
as it is, i'm not sure why he hasn't at least spent token time in AA already.

drafted in 2003, he was sent to Dayton (3.43 ERA, 8.47 H/9, 0.92 HR/9, 3.20 BB/9, 8.92 K/9, 39.1 IP) after dominating Billings in his first pro year.

at age 22 in Dayton, 2.86 ERA, 7.46 H/9, 0.95 HR/9, 3.81 BB/9, 14.29 K/9.

at age 23 in Sarasota, 2.45 ERA, 6.80 H/9, 0.35 HR/9, 2.45 BB/9, 11.40 K/9.

seems like he was dominating High A pretty good, he's 23 years old, so why not give him at least 3 weeks in Chattanooga's pen?

i just have this weird feeling the Reds (read as O'Brien) are ignoring him because Baseball America is ignoring him.

Reds Nd2
11-29-2005, 03:01 PM
Anyone else suprised by the absence of Bergolla and Howard?

flyer85
11-29-2005, 03:03 PM
Anyone else suprised by the absence of Bergolla and Howard?yes, especially with the inclusion of Perez and Gonzalez.

M2
11-29-2005, 03:04 PM
Anyone else suprised by the absence of Bergolla and Howard?

Partially, though I'm more surprised by the absence of Medlock and Rosales.

ochre
11-29-2005, 03:09 PM
Partially, though I'm more surprised by the absence of Medlock and Rosales.
Yep. I was just thinking the same about Medlock particularly. They must think he's too short.

I believe BA has seen Rosales as a fluke. I think its based on how they rated him coming out of college.

Reds Nd2
11-29-2005, 03:22 PM
yes, especially with the inclusion of Perez and Gonzalez.

I was a little stumped by Gonzalez, but BA has been pretty enamoured with Perez' catch and throw skills.

SteelSD
11-29-2005, 03:23 PM
Yep. I was just thinking the same about Medlock particularly. They must think he's too short.

I believe BA has seen Rosales as a fluke. I think its based on how they rated him coming out of college.

Leaving Rosales off that list is a crime.

Freakin' guy posts .998 and .918 OPS seasons in his last two college seasons then just keeps on trucking while advancing up the minor league food chain. Didn't miss a beat, led Pioneer League Shortstops in Fielding Percentage (.983) and DP's (29) while smacking the cover off the ball and then only got better offensively at Sarasota. Even if he doesn't end up at SS (we all know how that goes), the guy has "fast track" written all over him if he continutes to hit.

Medlock is a guy who scouts keep saying doesn't have the pure stuff to get folks out but then just keeps getting folks out. At less than 6'0" tall, I can see where someone would project him down a list, but to float names like Perez and Chick instead of Medlock at this point is pretty silly.

BA's schtick has been to routinely hype guys they've hyped in the past. It's convenient, but stupid.

Reds Nd2
11-29-2005, 03:26 PM
Partially, though I'm more surprised by the absence of Medlock and Rosales.

I'm asking here, because I don't know, but isn't 23 a little old to be pitching in high A ball?

SteelSD
11-29-2005, 03:29 PM
I'm asking here, because I don't know, but isn't 23 a little old to be pitching in high A ball?

He turned 23 on November 8th, 2005 according to thebaseballcube.com.

M2
11-29-2005, 03:32 PM
I'm asking here, because I don't know, but isn't 23 a little old to be pitching in high A ball?

You mean Guevara, right?

Yeah, it's about a year older than the norm, but it's not wantonly out of line.

Milezinni
11-29-2005, 03:37 PM
I was actually trying to make the point that the cavalry won't be arriving any time soon because there is no cavalry.

Period.

You don't think Baily, Wood, or Perez have serious ML potential?

Why not?

Now that Bowden-hurry-up-and-get-here-if-your-arm-doesn't-blow-out is gone, they have a chance to develop at a higher percentage pace....

Reds Nd2
11-29-2005, 03:37 PM
He turned 23 on November 8th, 2005 according to thebaseballcube.com.

Thanks Steel. For some reason I thought his birthday was early in the year.

Reds Nd2
11-29-2005, 03:39 PM
You mean Guevara, right?

Yeah, it's about a year older than the norm, but it's not wantonly out of line.


I was refering to Medlock. Didn't he spend the year at Sarasota? But as Steel pointed out, he wasn't as old as I gave him credit for being. My bad for relying on memory and not looking it up first.

M2
11-29-2005, 03:39 PM
You don't think Baily, Wood, or Perez have serious ML potential?

Why not?

Now that Bowden-hurry-up-and-get-here-if-your-arm-doesn't-blow-out is gone, they have a chance to develop at a higher percentage pace....

Perez isn't a pitcher ... though his chances might be better if he were because he's from the Dan Sardinha school of hitting.

Reds Nd2
11-29-2005, 03:43 PM
He's having a pretty good winter. Whatever that's worth
.289/.357/.421 (Perez)

M2
11-29-2005, 03:49 PM
I was refering to Medlock. Didn't he spend the year at Sarasota? But as Steel pointed out, he wasn't as old as I gave him credit for being. My bad for relying on memory and not looking it up first.

Yeah, that threw me for a moment. Medlock's actually on a pretty good track. Say he does well in AA next year and then in AAA in 2007. In that case he'd probably debut in the majors in late 2007 at age 24. Aaron Harang just got over the hump at age 27. Brandon Claussen's hoping to follow in his footsteps at age 27. Medlock could be in his first full major league season at age 25 if he progresses on schedule. Though his GB/FB ratio concerns me.

ochre
11-29-2005, 04:11 PM
Leaving Rosales off that list is a crime.

Freakin' guy posts .998 and .918 OPS seasons in his last two college seasons then just keeps on trucking while advancing up the minor league food chain. Didn't miss a beat, led Pioneer League Shortstops in Fielding Percentage (.983) and DP's (29) while smacking the cover off the ball and then only got better offensively at Sarasota. Even if he doesn't end up at SS (we all know how that goes), the guy has "fast track" written all over him if he continutes to hit.

Medlock is a guy who scouts keep saying doesn't have the pure stuff to get folks out but then just keeps getting folks out. At less than 6'0" tall, I can see where someone would project him down a list, but to float names like Perez and Chick instead of Medlock at this point is pretty silly.

BA's schtick has been to routinely hype guys they've hyped in the past. It's convenient, but stupid.
I'd probably have both in my top 6 or so. The reasons I listed were the only things I could think of as far as reasons (poor) to leave them off.

rdiersin
11-29-2005, 04:14 PM
Yeah, that threw me for a moment. Medlock's actually on a pretty good track. Say he does well in AA next year and then in AAA in 2007. In that case he'd probably debut in the majors in late 2007 at age 24. Aaron Harang just got over the hump at age 27. Brandon Claussen's hoping to follow in his footsteps at age 27. Medlock could be in his first full major league season at age 25 if he progresses on schedule. Though his GB/FB ratio concerns me.


Why does his GB/FB concern you? Don't get me wrong, I know its below 1, and that is a concern, but I am not sure how much of one. While there is some correlation between HR and GB/FB, the magnitude of the correlation coefficient is on the order of .35 or so (for the majors). Not particularly substantial. I guess, what I am trying to get at is that he has had good HR/9, I think in both of his years. Once in a hitters park and the other in a pitchers league. I guess the telling year will be the next when he has to adjust to AA.

Also, are there any studies relating GB/FB ratio in the minors? I am not aware of any. I am just a little suspect of it, at least in the minors. It just seems that in the lower minors there are lower GB/FB ratios to me. I haven't looked at it totally yet, so this is why I guess I am asking. Just a quick look is all that I have given it. It seems to me that superior pitchers in the minors may get more pop ups than as they progress, thereby making the GB/FB ratio difficult to predict as a player moves up.

Reds Nd2
11-29-2005, 04:27 PM
Yeah, that threw me for a moment.

Though his GB/FB ratio concerns me.


If people could only read my mind (or I could could type my thoughts more clearly), my life would be so much easier. :)

These are the career numbers for Medlock. No wonder you like this guy.
K/9 - 9.18
K/BB - 3.91
WHIP - 1.14

Doesn't look like he has a problem missing bats.

M2
11-29-2005, 04:49 PM
Why does his GB/FB concern you? Don't get me wrong, I know its below 1, and that is a concern, but I am not sure how much of one. While there is some correlation between HR and GB/FB, the magnitude of the correlation coefficient is on the order of .35 or so (for the majors). Not particularly substantial. I guess, what I am trying to get at is that he has had good HR/9, I think in both of his years. Once in a hitters park and the other in a pitchers league. I guess the telling year will be the next when he has to adjust to AA.

Also, are there any studies relating GB/FB ratio in the minors? I am not aware of any. I am just a little suspect of it, at least in the minors. It just seems that in the lower minors there are lower GB/FB ratios to me. I haven't looked at it totally yet, so this is why I guess I am asking. Just a quick look is all that I have given it. It seems to me that superior pitchers in the minors may get more pop ups than as they progress, thereby making the GB/FB ratio difficult to predict as a player moves up.

I don't know about studies, but it's always seemed to me that the upper minors (and the California League) is where previously successful flyball pitchers tend to encounter longball problems. Once they run into more mature hitters those flyballs start to travel a little farther and trouble can ensue. In general, I'm down on flyball pitchers these days. Oh, I wouldn't mind Curt Schilling or John Smoltz, but the Reds have bitten into too much electrified flyball cheese of late. Medlock had a 0.7 ratio last year. It's not a death sentence by any means, but it does cause me some concern that it could lead to a steep increase in his homer totals. The good news is that he's had no problem in that area up until now (except for his brief stint in Potomac and that may have been the result of being advanced too quickly). Hopefully Medlock follows the Ryan Madson path, where no one loves him too much and he can learn from a year-long stop at every level.

Puffy
11-29-2005, 04:49 PM
This list makes me sad.

Steve4192
11-29-2005, 05:09 PM
i just have this weird feeling the Reds (read as O'Brien) are ignoring him because Baseball America is ignoring him.
Actually, it usually works the other way around. For the team-by-team prospect lists, BBA relies pretty heavilly on the teams internal assessment of their prospects. That often leads to productive guys getting left off of the list because the parent organization doesn't think they have a great 'ceiling'.

M2
11-29-2005, 05:15 PM
Actually, it usually works the other way around. For the team-by-team prospect lists, BBA relies pretty heavilly on the teams internal assessment of their prospects. That often leads to productive guys getting left off of the list because the parent organization doesn't think they have a great 'ceiling'.

Exactly. Part of what that list tells you is where the Reds' minds are at.

Milezinni
11-29-2005, 05:39 PM
Reds "minds" are about to change heads. Hopefully.

Steve4192
11-29-2005, 05:39 PM
I don't know about studies, but it's always seemed to me that the upper minors (and the California League) is where previously successful flyball pitchers tend to encounter longball problems.
For my purposes, I tend to look at HR/H ratio for pitchers in the low minors rather than straight HR/9IP.

Some guys put up ridiculous H/IP pitch numbers in single-A and that really skews their HR/IP rate. With inexperienced pitchers, I am more concerned with the quality of contact they allow when they fail to miss bats rather than the gross results over 9IP. Bruce Chen was always a guy who put up acceptable HR/9IP ratios in the minors but once he stopped missing bats his HR/9IP rate jumped because he couldn't maintain his crazy minor league H/IP rates.

I don't know where to slot Medlock just yet. His HR rate in his first exposure to high-A was pretty ugly, but he rebounded nicely this year in the FSL. Of course, the FSL also has a reputation as being one of the most pitcher friendly leagues in professional ball. The big question is can he hold onto the gains he made this year, or will he regress when he steps up to the Southern League.

M2
11-29-2005, 05:51 PM
For my purposes, I tend to look at HR/H ratio for pitchers in the low minors rather than straight HR/9IP.

Some guys put up ridiculous H/IP pitch numbers in single-A and that really skews their HR/IP rate. With inexperienced pitchers, I am more concerned with the quality of contact they allow when they fail to miss bats rather than the gross results over 9IP. Bruce Chen was always a guy who put up acceptable HR/9IP ratios in the minors but once he stopped missing bats his HR/9IP rate jumped because he couldn't maintain his crazy minor league H/IP rates.

I don't know where to slot Medlock just yet. His HR rate in his first exposure to high-A was pretty ugly, but he rebounded nicely this year in the FSL. Of course, the FSL also has a reputation as being one of the most pitcher friendly leagues in professional ball. The big question is can he hold onto the gains he made this year, or will he regress when he steps up to the Southern League.

Great way to slice that bread. I'm using HR/H on a regular basis from here on out.

The Southern League can be pretty pitcher friendly too, so Medlock, assuming he keeps maturing, might not run into any longball demons until Indianapolis.

FWIW, I love what he's done to date, it's just that one proclivity that makes me a little nervous.

ochre
11-29-2005, 05:53 PM
Great way to slice that bread. I'm using HR/H on a regular basis from here on out.

The Southern League can be pretty pitcher friendly too, so Medlock, assuming he keeps maturing, might not run into any longball demons until Indianapolis.

FWIW, I love what he's done to date, it's just that one proclivity that makes me a little nervous.
All the more reason to be pimping him hard. Shine him up as a top 2-3 prospect and use him in a trade.

Milezinni
11-29-2005, 06:07 PM
Not me,

I like to watch the pitcher in a game. See what kind of stuff he has overall, and see how he uses it to get batters to hit into the various defensive alignments based on the various situations that come up.

See how he pitches to situational baseball. Because in my mind, that's all that matters.

I factor in what I know about the strategic tendencies of the Coach, and then try to come away with an impression of whether or not he could succeed under the coaches strategy, or was it a case of being in the wrong "system".

One of the reasons Coaches get fired is because they can't utilize the strengths of his players into a strategy that works.

Is that the pitchers fault?

I mean, if he is pitching into the strategy devised by the coaching staff, and get's rocked unmercilessly, is that the fault of the pitcher?

Or is the pitcher missing his spots? And just can't work in anyone's system? Is his stuff "off" today?

90+% of the pitchers in baseball do not call their own game, so, who is a good pitcher, and who isn't?

princeton
11-29-2005, 06:16 PM
This list makes me sad.

why? rock bottom is only barely above us

M2
11-29-2005, 06:21 PM
why? rock bottom is only barely above us

Just curious on your thoughts about the BA rankings since you've been known to make a Reds top prospects list every now and then. I haven't been able to muster a list in months. I get lost somewhere around number three and figure there's no way I'll make it to ten.

princeton
11-29-2005, 06:44 PM
Farm system 2003-2005 reminds me of 1994-1997 except that they can't blame Marge

M2
11-29-2005, 06:50 PM
Farm system 2003-2005 reminds me of 1994-1997 except that they can't blame Marge

That's basically my take too.

Puffy
11-29-2005, 06:52 PM
Farm system 2003-2005 reminds me of 1994-1997 except that they can't blame Marge

This list makes me sad.

Betterread
11-29-2005, 07:42 PM
Farm system 2003-2005 reminds me of 1994-1997 except that they can't blame Marge

Does that mean that you believe Wily Mo Pena, Edwin Encarnacion and Brandon Claussen will turn out to be less successful than Jason LaRue, Aaron Boone and Brett Tomko? (all six players mentioned were prospects that were given significant roles for the ML team)
Or are you talking about the drafts for those years? For the sake of comparison, I think the bad years for Reds drafts were 1999-2002 (only yielding Ben Broussard- with hope for Joey Votto and Chris Denorfia). 2003 has turned out badly, but 2004 and 2005 still hold promise.

Reds Nd2
11-29-2005, 07:58 PM
For my purposes, I tend to look at HR/H ratio for pitchers in the low minors rather than straight HR/9IP.

Some guys put up ridiculous H/IP pitch numbers in single-A and that really skews their HR/IP rate. With inexperienced pitchers, I am more concerned with the quality of contact they allow when they fail to miss bats rather than the gross results over 9IP.

The GB/FB doesn't give you a cause for concern then? It seems to me that this would be of paramount importance, especially if a pitcher began to miss bats. I'm asking, because GB/FB is the first thing I look at. It's troublesome to me if a pitcher is getting most of his non strikeout outs, on fly balls.

Falls City Beer
11-29-2005, 08:02 PM
Does that mean that you believe Wily Mo Pena, Edwin Encarnacion and Brandon Claussen will turn out to be less successful than Jason LaRue, Aaron Boone and Brett Tomko? (all six players mentioned were prospects that were given significant roles for the ML team)
Or are you talking about the drafts for those years? For the sake of comparison, I think the bad years for Reds drafts were 1999-2002 (only yielding Ben Broussard- with hope for Joey Votto and Chris Denorfia). 2003 has turned out badly, but 2004 and 2005 still hold promise.

Really? 2004 holds promise? Do tell. Err, never mind, I'd rather not endure another Bailey stat-skewering. Which leaves this question: how can one player with an enormous "if" tag hanging around his neck qualify as a "promising" draft?

And please, please count me among the dubious of the 2005 draft. Bruce, Wood, the whole damn lot. Too young; they're like homunculi at this point.

rdiersin
11-29-2005, 08:30 PM
The GB/FB doesn't give you a cause for concern then? It seems to me that this would be of paramount importance, especially if a pitcher began to miss bats. I'm asking, because GB/FB is the first thing I look at. It's troublesome to me if a pitcher is getting most of his non strikeout outs, on fly balls.


The thing about Medlock, is if you look at the game log, you see that after his first four starts he only gave up 2 HR. That's right, he gave up 4 of his HRs in his first four appearances of the year. Furthermore, he had a GO/FO ratio closer to 1, in 0.85. (I should say that if you go by the box scores and find the GO and FO and calculate the GO/FO, you don't get the GB/FB that BA has in their stats. At least I didn't, but it was close.)

The one cause for concern that I had was that it seemed that he was shut down early in Sarasota, and I never heard anything about that.

Aronchis
11-29-2005, 08:44 PM
The key difference between the mid-90's system vs. now are the arms. These guys are legit power hurlers. They throw heat. Whether they develope anything with that heat is of course questionable, but the raw talent is there compared to the mid-90's system which offered very little in terms of raw talent. I would say this is a big year for Bailey,Gonzo,Pelland,Chick,Vallygirl and Ward of the "power" throwers. Lets see how they develope with some softer tossers like Medlock, Stevens,Lecure and Fisher mixed in.

O'brien is either going to leave the team with a increasing number of power arms beginning to sprinkle into the upper minors, or the status quo which we have had for the last 20 years. It could influence the new GM's timetable and such. Do you rebuild over in a 5-6 year plan? Or go more for a 1-2 year plan based on talent already inside the organization? Pray for the best.

Reds Nd2
11-29-2005, 08:49 PM
I haven't checked the game logs, but you bring up some very good points about Medlock. My questions were meant to be in judging pitchers overall, GB/FB is the first thing I look at. Milton has me a little gun shy, I guess.

Steve4192
11-29-2005, 08:59 PM
The GB/FB doesn't give you a cause for concern then? It seems to me that this would be of paramount importance, especially if a pitcher began to miss bats. I'm asking, because GB/FB is the first thing I look at. It's troublesome to me if a pitcher is getting most of his non strikeout outs, on fly balls.
Cause for concern?

Sure ... if the player is an extreme flyball pitcher and has shown problems keeping the ball in the park. Otherwise, I don't worry too much about it. Just beacuse a guy is a flyball pitcher does not mean that he is, or will be, gopher prone. Pedro Martinez, Johan Santana, Jason Schmidt, and Mark Prior are all flyball pitchers and they've all been pretty good at keeping the ball in the park.

In general, I feel GB:FB rate doesn't have much predictive value as to whether a guy will develop 'gopheritis' at some point in the future. I feel his actual HR/H rate is a much better indicator of future success/failure.

In Medlock's case, he is nowhere near being an 'extreme' flyball pitcher, and has had his HR rate in control for most of his career. At this point, I am cautiously optimistic, but I will reserve the right to change my mind if the Southern League goes all 'Whack a Mole' on him in 2006.

Falls City Beer
11-29-2005, 09:35 PM
Farm system 2003-2005 reminds me of 1994-1997 except that they can't blame Marge

Right. Now we have a clear picture of what it looks like to have all of the idiots pulling in one direction.

Kc61
11-29-2005, 09:41 PM
This list confirms my view that DanO has succeeded in terms of stocking the Reds system with better minor league prospects. I find the list pretty encouraging.

Bailey, Bruce, Wood are all high level young prospects. The 2005 draft had a number of other good ones, particularly pitchers (Ward, LeClure, etc.) who are not even on this list. Guys like Pelland, Gonzalez and Chick are solid arms (not a junk baller among them). Add in the injury rehabs (Dumatrait, Gardner, Pauly), relievers (Guevera, Shafer) and some others (Germano, Medlock) you are starting to see some real depth.

Many of these guys are in the lower minors, but in two years, if they stay healthy, they will start to emerge. I'm glad the Reds drafted Bailey out of high school rather than a lesser talent at the college level. (Top college guys were gone when Reds drafted in first round, as I recall.)

I'd like to look at the top 30 list BA issues every year. I think, perhaps, for the first time in a while, it will be worth reading beyond prospect number 12 or 13.

rdiersin
11-29-2005, 09:47 PM
I haven't checked the game logs, but you bring up some very good points about Medlock. My questions were meant to be in judging pitchers overall, GB/FB is the first thing I look at. Milton has me a little gun shy, I guess.


I understand, and GB/FB is important for major league pitchers since it is very consistent from year to year. Its just not the most important. Defense independent stats such as DIPS and FIP are much more consistent, at least that has been my experience. And Milton pretty much fails there too.

M2
11-29-2005, 11:56 PM
The key difference between the mid-90's system vs. now are the arms. These guys are legit power hurlers. They throw heat.

Ty Howington, Ricardo Aramboles, Rob Bell and Chris Gruler threw plenty of heat. So what.

Back in the '90s, Brett Tomko threw hard. Johnny Ruffin could blow the doors off your car with his heater. Curt Lyons had a power pitcher profile. IIRC, Mo Sanford earned some Bob Gibson comparisons. John Roper had a plenty good arm. Kevin Jarvis and Tim Pugh could dial it in the mid-90s as well.

Yeah, this crew will solve all the club's problems. That line ought to come with a built-in Rocket T. Squirrel shaking his head at it. Now, it's possible this pack of teenagers could develop into something good, but they haven't done anything yet and there's 30 teams out there with kids who can tickle a radar gun. So far this crew hasn't done much to distinguish itself (Travis Wood being the lone exception).


Does that mean that you believe Wily Mo Pena, Edwin Encarnacion and Brandon Claussen will turn out to be less successful than Jason LaRue, Aaron Boone and Brett Tomko?

Hard to call Claussen a Reds product. In fact, and this speaks volumes, the three guys you picked out of a hat to defend the Reds system all came to the organization via trade.

Superdude
11-30-2005, 01:13 AM
BA's so into tool it's rediculous! Perez is just a pathetic hitter and Gonzalez got absolutely torched in low A.

Where is Howard, Bergolla, and Dumatrait? At least they have had some success.

Betterread
11-30-2005, 01:14 AM
Really? 2004 holds promise? Do tell. Err, never mind, I'd rather not endure another Bailey stat-skewering. Which leaves this question: how can one player with an enormous "if" tag hanging around his neck qualify as a "promising" draft?


Please keep inmind that BA named 3 draftees from 2004 in the Reds' top 10. So at least a few other people share the opinion that there was some potential talent from that draft. I thought that was what this thread was about.
I don't know if you read over what you are writing, but you take a contemptuous tone in some of your posts. If you value how clearly your thoughts are communicated, you ought to try a little harder to be more articulate and less hostile. This is just a suggestion, and you are free to ignore it.

SteelSD
11-30-2005, 01:33 AM
This list confirms my view that DanO has succeeded in terms of stocking the Reds system with better minor league prospects. I find the list pretty encouraging.

That list includes players ranked #4, #6, #7, and #10 who've done absolutely nothing in the Reds' system. The #8 guy (Pelland) can't get really get anyone out. That's bad because if you're going to carry your prospect label based on your arm, at some point your arm needs help you actually record a goodly number of Outs. The number 5 guy (Denorfia) began last season as a 24-year old AA player and projects as a backup OF.

You may not realize this, but that list actually stops at #3. If you'd gain any insight by reading past #12/13 it would only be to catch the guys BA wasn't smart enough to include in the top 10. But it's academic really, because BA has done a great job of turning itself into the blindfolded dart board rag of tools evaluation.

There's a very simple difference between a good farm system and a bad farm system. With a good farm system, you'd have a difficult time deciding who to leave off a top 10 prospect list. With the Reds farm system, it's a struggle to figure out who's worth including.

Aronchis
11-30-2005, 02:52 AM
BA's so into tool it's rediculous! Perez is just a pathetic hitter and Gonzalez got absolutely torched in low A.

Where is Howard, Bergolla, and Dumatrait? At least they have had some success.

So he got "torched" in limited low A innings as a 19 year old, he did well in Billings, his proper age level. That is why people don't like drafting High School pitching, because it takes years for it to develope "most" of the time.

lollipopcurve
11-30-2005, 10:10 AM
The BA list is what it is -- part pact between BA and the organization to make high picks look good, part echoing of earlier BA rankings/assessments, part objective evaluation. So, my assumption is that there are kernels of truth (how good are these guys?) and interest (how do the Reds feel about these guys?). Not easy to know which is which, though...

In this case...

Surprised to see Raffy Gonzalez, and surprised to hear about his conditioning issue (which was forecast when he was drafted, but not reprised this past year, at least to my knowledge). Glad to read about that power arm, though, and some of his numbers at Billings were impressive for a 19-year-old.

Where's Dumatrait? He had a good year at AA, especially for a first season back from TJ. I think he was on the list last year, so it's a mystery that he has dropped off...

BJ -- the most important position prospect in the system, in my opinion. He didn't make my top ten, because I need to see more ABs, and he's pretty old. But if he emerges, a power-hitting switch-hitter somewhere in the middle of the Reds lineup, it will be exciting.

Votto -- I had him at #9 too. Worried about Joey.

No Bergolla or Howard -- Never got love from BA, never will. Both are underrated, I think.

No Rosales -- They're wrong.

No Medlock -- I hope others are right about Cal. But I'd be surprised if the organization keeps him as a starter at AA. Go Cal.