PDA

View Full Version : Baseball America ranks Reds farm system 29th out of 30 teams



savafan
02-08-2006, 12:57 PM
Here is how they ranked each organization:

1. Dodgers
2. Marlins
3. Angels
4. D-Backs
5. Brewers
6. Twins
7. Red Sox
8. Braves
9. Rockies
10. D-Rays
11. Indians
12. White Sox
13. Orioles
14. Tigers
15. Cubs
16. Rangers
17. Yankees
18. Giants
19. Pirates
20. Astros
21. Cardinals
22. Phillies
23. Royals
24. Nationals
25. Blue Jays
26. Athletics
27. Mariners
28. Padres
29. Reds
30. Mets


And here are the Reds top 10 prospects

1. Homer Bailey RHP
2. Jay Bruce OF
3. Travis Wood LHP
4. B.J. Szymanski OF
5. Chris Denorfia OF
6. Rafeal Gonzalez RHP
7. Miguel Perez C
8. Tyler Pelland LHP
9. Joey Votto 1B
10. Travis Chick RHP

KronoRed
02-08-2006, 12:58 PM
BS

We are just as bad as the mets.

Doc. Scott
02-08-2006, 03:08 PM
OW. While I'd put the Reds in the lower third, I find it hard to believe we're worse than all of the Nationals, Padres, Royals, Astros, and Cardinals.

max venable
02-08-2006, 03:14 PM
BS

We are just as bad as the mets.
:laugh: Nice.

I think they're probably about right with their assessment...but that's all going to change...right?

dougdirt
02-08-2006, 03:24 PM
Ive got to agree with Doc on this one for sure. The Reds cant be below some of those teams. I take everything BA says with a grain of salt though. They are very high on ones percieved potential rather than ones actual production. Although they may be ranked so low as most of their upper echelon talent seems to be at the lower levels....

M2
02-08-2006, 03:30 PM
The Reds probably would have copped 30 before the Mets made the Delgado and LoDuca deals.

Though the Royals are #30 in my book.

M2
02-08-2006, 03:38 PM
OW. While I'd put the Reds in the lower third, I find it hard to believe we're worse than all of the Nationals, Padres, Royals, Astros, and Cardinals.

I'd take either the Cardinals or Astros systems in a heartbeat. Both feature a quality high minors starter in the #1 slot and both have had strong drafts over the past two years.

To borrow from WOY, the Nats, Padres, Mets and Royals are all at the Reds' lunch table.

Anyway, for anyone who thought DanO had the system going in the right direction, I submit the BA list. He drafted for tools. BA likes tools. BA just ranked the Reds 29th out of 30.

membengal
02-08-2006, 03:42 PM
WOO HOO!

In your FACE, Mets!

rdiersin
02-08-2006, 03:48 PM
The Reds probably would have copped 30 before the Mets made the Delgado and LoDuca deals.

Though the Royals are #30 in my book.

I'd take the Royals with Butler and Gordon over the Reds.The Mets might be better than the Reds, at least in terms of impact players, with Milledge and Pelfrey

Falls City Beer
02-08-2006, 03:51 PM
I'd take the Royals with Butler and Gordon over the Reds.The Mets might be better than the Reds, at least in terms of impact players, with Milledge and Pelfrey

I'm with ya. Reds are #30 with a bullet. I think we envision the Royals at 30 for the way they handle their farm talent at MLB level, but in terms of pure potential the Royals have more interesting and farther along presences than the Reds--particularly if you count Denorfia a MLB player. Then it just becomes undebateable--Reds are by far the worst.

rdiersin
02-08-2006, 03:58 PM
I'm with ya. Reds are #30 with a bullet. I think we envision the Royals at 30 for the way they handle their farm talent at MLB level, but in terms of pure potential the Royals have more interesting and farther along presences than the Reds--particularly if you count Denorfia a MLB player. Then it just becomes undebateable--Reds are by far the worst.

If you count Denorfia as a MLB player, then Zimmerman must be too, and then the worst, hands down, would be the Nats, but yea the Reds are bad. When your best players were all in low A or below, that's not good. There are still some that I hold hope for like Gardner, but if you look at the system as of now, its not looking too great. It will be interesting to see what happens this year. I could see that if progress is made by Bailey, Bruce and Wood acclimate themselves well in full season ball, and they have a good draft that the system could jump to the 15-20 range, maybe more. Such is the way with prospect lists.

dougdirt
02-08-2006, 04:00 PM
I'd take either the Cardinals or Astros systems in a heartbeat. Both feature a quality high minors starter in the #1 slot and both have had strong drafts over the past two years.

To borrow from WOY, the Nats, Padres, Mets and Royals are all at the Reds' lunch table.

Anyway, for anyone who thought DanO had the system going in the right direction, I submit the BA list. He drafted for tools. BA likes tools. BA just ranked the Reds 29th out of 30.

That part may be true, but the Reds are the ones who run that table.

As for the Cards or Astros having a #1 guy in the high minors...yeah they do. The Cards have Anthony Reyes, but who else do they have? He is it. The Astros have Hirsh and Patton and who else? Patton isnt even in the high minors yet, and after him they dont have a whole lot that I see that puts them ahead of the Reds in any way shape or form

Aronchis
02-08-2006, 04:01 PM
If you count Denorfia as a MLB player, then Zimmerman must be too, and then the worst, hands down, would be the Nats, but yea the Reds are bad. When your best players were all in low A or below, that's not good. There are still some that I hold hope for like Gardner, but if you look at the system as of now, its not looking too great. It will be interesting to see what happens this year. I could see that if progress is made by Bailey, Bruce and Wood acclimate themselves well in full season ball, and they have a good draft that the system could jump to the 15-20 range, maybe more. Such is the way with prospect lists.

The Reds system was ranked number 3 in 2001. These rankings are biased based and poorly developed. If Bailey,Bruce and Wood all progress, we will be ranked number 5 next year;)

M2
02-08-2006, 04:16 PM
That part may be true, but the Reds are the ones who run that table.

As for the Cards or Astros having a #1 guy in the high minors...yeah they do. The Cards have Anthony Reyes, but who else do they have? He is it. The Astros have Hirsh and Patton and who else? Patton isnt even in the high minors yet, and after him they dont have a whole lot that I see that puts them ahead of the Reds in any way shape or form

A) I'd trade the entire Reds top 10 for Hirsch and Patton. Wild guess, but their #9 (Bogusevic) would probably rank ahead of the Reds' #4 (Szymanski).

B) Reyes is not it with the Cardinals and only folks desperate to see the Birds fall from grace would claim such a thing. IMO, BA listed them just about right.

C) Bravado is nice, but rdiersin made a good case for the Mets and the Royals. I don't agree with the Royals still because the system dies after about four guys (none of whom can pitch). The Reds have got exactly no one like Zimmerman. I'm guessing the average Padres fan would prefer the Padres list, just like the average Reds fan will insist the Reds have a better list. My take is they both suck and who cares.


If Bailey,Bruce and Wood all progress, we will be ranked number 5 next year.

Is that before or after pigs start flying because Hell has frozen over and it's making their hooves cold?

lollipopcurve
02-08-2006, 04:23 PM
Time will tell. BA rewards their friends with rankings like these, in my opinion, and if there's one thing we know about this past Reds regime is that they made very few friends in the media.

I happen to like the Reds system better than several teams above them, but that's just me.

Chip R
02-08-2006, 04:25 PM
WOO HOO!

In your FACE, Mets!

:laugh:

Doc. Scott
02-08-2006, 04:59 PM
What about the Yankees at #17? That's probably the single worst rating of all of 'em. Ryan Zimmerman, who really didn't spend hardly any time in the minors, has to be included if the Nationals are going to be #24.

vaticanplum
02-08-2006, 05:09 PM
What about the Yankees at #17? That's probably the single worst rating of all of 'em.

The Yankees have not had a good farm system for awhile. In fact since the boom of free agency it's never been their focus -- the aberration that produced Jeter, Pettitte, Rivera, Williams, Posada et al. was due in part to Steinbrenner's suspension in the 90s after he put private investigators on Dave Winfield.

Every year people say the Yankees have no prospects, and every year a few manage to spring up to the majors out of nowhere -- Cano and Wang last year. But that's luck, and probably some good coaching. The talent in their farm system as a whole is average at best and the ranking is right about where I'd put them.

dougdirt
02-08-2006, 06:46 PM
A) I'd trade the entire Reds top 10 for Hirsch and Patton. Wild guess, but their #9 (Bogusevic) would probably rank ahead of the Reds' #4 (Szymanski).
Thats just a silly statement. You would trade the Reds "top 10 prospects" for two guys who have yet to pitch in the bigs for more than 50 innings combined?
Oh, and BA thinks way to highly of Szymanski. I wouldnt put him any higher than 7th in the system. He cant stay healthy and he cant seem to get on base with any consistancy. He is a good athlete with some pop in his bat, but he isnt getting any younger.


B) Reyes is not it with the Cardinals and only folks desperate to see the Birds fall from grace would claim such a thing. IMO, BA listed them just about right.

Who else do the Cardinals have? The Cards arent going to take a fall from grace, but I dont see anything that says the Cards have a better system than the Reds.

rdiersin
02-08-2006, 06:48 PM
Who else do the Cardinals have? The Cards arent going to take a fall from grace, but I dont see anything that says the Cards have a better system than the Reds.

Well, what do you see in the Reds that makes them a better system than the Cards? I just don't see it myself.

RFS62
02-08-2006, 06:55 PM
WOO HOO!

In your FACE, Mets!




:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

dougdirt
02-08-2006, 07:11 PM
Well, what do you see in the Reds that makes them a better system than the Cards? I just don't see it myself.
Fair enough question.

I see more depth and more talent top to bottom first off. The Cardinals have a few upper echelon prospects just like the Reds do....but after that, they have very little. I think this is where the Reds system is stronger. There seems to be a gap between the Reds top 3 guys and the rest of their system, but the rest of those guys stack up better top and bottom than where the rest of the Cardinals organization does.

M2
02-08-2006, 07:13 PM
Thats just a silly statement. You would trade the Reds "top 10 prospects" for two guys who have yet to pitch in the bigs for more than 50 innings combined?

Yeah, magic beans will feed us all. Me, I'd rather buy some cows. Hirsch is 100% of what the Reds need and Patton's well ahead of every pitching prospect in the Reds' system.


Oh, and BA thinks way to highly of Szymanski. I wouldnt put him any higher than 7th in the system. He cant stay healthy and he cant seem to get on base with any consistancy. He is a good athlete with some pop in his bat, but he isnt getting any younger.

They like tools. Point being, even though Szymanski's their kind of lover he'd be lucky to crack the BA top 10 for the Astros ... and that's a big reason why the Astros rank ahead of the Reds. Better at the top, better in the middle. Just plain better.


Who else do the Cardinals have? The Cards arent going to take a fall from grace, but I dont see anything that says the Cards have a better system than the Reds.

Then you're not looking very hard. The Reds got anything that compares to Wainwright and Lambert? No, not even close. If Cincinnati grabbed them both, Wainwright probably would make the Reds' rotation and Lambert would probaby qualify as the best starter in the Reds' high minors.

M2
02-08-2006, 07:23 PM
Fair enough question.

I see more depth and more talent top to bottom first off. The Cardinals have a few upper echelon prospects just like the Reds do....but after that, they have very little. I think this is where the Reds system is stronger. There seems to be a gap between the Reds top 3 guys and the rest of their system, but the rest of those guys stack up better top and bottom than where the rest of the Cardinals organization does.

???

There's a big, old gap between the Reds top three and the rest, but it's the rest that somehow elevate the system?

Well, that's just backwards, isn't it? I could see saying you think Bailey, Bruce and Wood are all kinds of dynamite (though anyone banking on two teenage arms is headed for trouble), but if there's a big drop after them, then that's not a good thing.

You yourself said you think Szymanski's overrated. Denorfia's a nice sleeper (but the Cardinals have Cody Haerter). Rafael Gonzalez is an erratic, fat kid who hasn't done anything of note yet. Miguel Perez swings a spaghetti stick. Tyler Pelland's 22 and has yet to log a good season in the minors. Joey Votto struggled like crazy last year and Travis Chick was nothing short of awful. And those seven guys somehow merit confidence?

Balderdash.

rdiersin
02-08-2006, 07:31 PM
Yea, I don't see it either. Wainright would easily be our number 4 (at least) prospect. The Cardinals have talent closer to the majors than the Reds and have close to as many higher ceiling guys. Its easy sometimes to think the Reds have a deeper system since we, as fans, follow them closer and know them better, even form some connection with them. But sometimes we can get caught up in it and lose track of what the system is like. The fact is the Reds have a lot more maybe's in their system than the Cardinals. That's important in deciding who has the better system. The goal of a minor league system is to bring quality mlb players, and right now the Reds system has way to many questions than answers.

dougdirt
02-08-2006, 07:40 PM
Im not looking at BA top 10 rankings. I think Joey Votto has no reason to be sniffing the top 10. He strikes out more than Adam Dunn, has half the power and plays in A-ball.

As for the Reds not having anyone like Wainwright....his last two seasons he has had a 5.37 and 4.40 ERA in AAA. His last two seasons his Whip is over 1.40. The Reds have quite a few guys like that in their system.

As far as Chris Lambert, are you kidding me? He pitched in AA last year. 18 starts, 85ip, 6.85 ERA, 48bb and 69ks. No way would he be the Reds best starter in the upper minors. Josh Hall, Elizardo Ramirez, Bobby Basham, Justin Germano, Phil Dumatrait and heck Even Travis Chick posted better numbers than that.

I dont think the Reds are anywhere near the top half of the best minor league systems...but better than the Cardinals, yes.

Shaknb8k
02-08-2006, 07:50 PM
Does anyone know if Krivsky has anything to do with that #6 ranking of the Twins?

KoryMac5
02-08-2006, 08:01 PM
The Reds definitely need to improve there farm system we didn't need Baseball America to tell us that. Wayne K has a pretty extensive background in scouting so I'm sure he will stock the cupboard with talent.

MrCinatit
02-08-2006, 08:33 PM
ah, Dan0's legacy lives on.
on the other hand, he probably simply turned the list upside down and is celebrating as we speak.

Doc. Scott
02-08-2006, 09:35 PM
I was thinking the Reds would be somewhere between #21 and #25. Ahead of the Mets, Nationals, Cardinals, Padres, and Yankees for sure.

That's not optimism.

cincyinco
02-08-2006, 09:47 PM
I was thinking the Reds would be somewhere between #21 and #25. Ahead of the Mets, Nationals, Cardinals, Padres, and Yankees for sure.

That's not optimism.

I'm right there with you Doc Scott. I feel they are better than most of the teams listed above.. and its sad to say thats not really saying much.

Betterread
02-08-2006, 10:03 PM
Time will tell. BA rewards their friends with rankings like these, in my opinion, and if there's one thing we know about this past Reds regime is that they made very few friends in the media.

I happen to like the Reds system better than several teams above them, but that's just me.

Wise words. However, bad marketing takes time to overcome and while the Organization does this, it puts the Reds at a disadvantage.

vaticanplum
02-08-2006, 10:04 PM
I was thinking the Reds would be somewhere between #21 and #25. Ahead of the Mets, Nationals, Cardinals, Padres, and Yankees for sure.

Oh I misunderstood you -- I thought you were surprised at how low the Yankees were. They've actually got a good bunch of hitters sprinkled all the down the system. Their lower levels, I think, are pretty good, better than what they have in Columbus, did very well last year in the rookie league and the New York-Penn league...but that's what, shortseason A Ball, so of course there's a long way to go there. but that probably stands them in good stead with these kinds of rankings.

My impression that the Yankees' pitching prospects are a great concern, but then they are for the Reds too. The ranking strikes me as accurate -- again, right in the middle. They're average. Sadly, from what I know of it, I don't think the Reds' farm system is quite average yet.

MartyFan
02-08-2006, 11:25 PM
WOO HOO!

In your FACE, Mets!

REVENGE!!! For the one game playoff!!

Superdude
02-09-2006, 12:43 AM
We're still overcoming the injury plagued era of Gruler, Howington, Aramboles... We've at least got some talent in the lower minors to add some hope. Guys like Ward, Stevens, and Lecure should be able to move quickly next year and raise our ranking at least to 28th. ;)

savafan
02-09-2006, 12:56 AM
We're still overcoming the injury plagued era of Gruler, Howington, Aramboles... We've at least got some talent in the lower minors to add some hope. Guys like Ward, Stevens, and Lecure should be able to move quickly next year and raise our ranking at least to 28th. ;)

Optimism is like gold. Hard to find and more valuable in theory. :devil:

SteelSD
02-09-2006, 01:34 AM
Im not looking at BA top 10 rankings.

Of course you aren't. You're looking at your own list which begins with three A-Ballers and one Miguel Perez.

Let's reflect on that for a moment...

Three A-Ball players.

One Miguel Perez.

Just so the absurdity of that list sinks in...

Three A-Ball players.

One Miguel Perez.

That puts an organization ahead of NO ONE. Why? Because every team has three promising A-Ball players and one no-hit Catcher in their system. Why? Because every team attends the amateur draft each season.

BA was being generous ranking the Reds system above the Mets.

Three A-Ball players.

One Miguel Perez.

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 02:13 AM
Of course you aren't. You're looking at your own list which begins with three A-Ballers and one Miguel Perez.

SteelSD, I really think you go out of your way to disagree with things I say.

BA has the exact same three A ballers at the top of their list as well.
As for Miguel Perez not hitting...he plays catcher. He doesnt need to hit to well to be a good catcher.

As far as those three A-ballers putting them ahead of no one because every team holds a draft each year...well not every team had the best prospect in the Pioneer leauge, or have two of the top 5 prospects in the GCL...so I would say that puts the Reds with Bruce and Wood a little bit ahead of the others. As for Bailey, he needs work on some things for sure, but hardly anyone strikes out more batters than he does. He doesnt give up hits or home runs and he strikes out more than 10 batters per 9 innings. Bailey was the #2 prospect in his league, Bruce was #1 and #2 in the two leagues he played in and Wood was the #5 in the GCL and would have been around #5 or 6 in the Pioneer league had he pitched another inning and qualified for the list over at BA.

SteelSD
02-09-2006, 02:31 AM
SteelSD, I really think you go out of your way to disagree with things I say.

I wish I had to go out of my way to find something wrong with the things you post.


BA has the exact same three A ballers at the top of their list as well.
As for Miguel Perez not hitting...he plays catcher. He doesnt need to hit to well to be a good catcher.

He has to hit better than he has in his three years in A-Ball. Otherwise, he's a Run Value liability. The guy is a complete afterthought on a team with something resembling even a mediocre farm system. I repeat- a COMPLETE afterthought. The fact that you think he's the fourth best prospect in the Reds system is a great example of just how bad that system is.


As far as those three A-ballers putting them ahead of no one because every team holds a draft each year...well not every team had the best prospect in the Pioneer leauge, or have two of the top 5 prospects in the GCL...so I would say that puts the Reds with Bruce and Wood a little bit ahead of the others. As for Bailey, he needs work on some things for sure, but hardly anyone strikes out more batters than he does. He doesnt give up hits or home runs and he strikes out more than 10 batters per 9 innings. Bailey was the #2 prospect in his league, Bruce was #1 and #2 in the two leagues he played in and Wood was the #5 in the GCL and would have been around #5 or 6 in the Pioneer league had he pitched another inning and qualified for the list over at BA.

Three A-Ball players.

One Miguel Perez.

When your team's top three prospects are a hard-throwing over-drafted project, a guy with fewer than 200 professional AB and another guy with fewer than 50 professional Innings your organization is teh suck- particularly when those three guys are followed by One Miguel Perez.

Caveat Emperor
02-09-2006, 03:02 AM
As far as those three A-ballers putting them ahead of no one because every team holds a draft each year...well not every team had the best prospect in the Pioneer leauge, or have two of the top 5 prospects in the GCL...so I would say that puts the Reds with Bruce and Wood a little bit ahead of the others. As for Bailey, he needs work on some things for sure, but hardly anyone strikes out more batters than he does. He doesnt give up hits or home runs and he strikes out more than 10 batters per 9 innings. Bailey was the #2 prospect in his league, Bruce was #1 and #2 in the two leagues he played in and Wood was the #5 in the GCL and would have been around #5 or 6 in the Pioneer league had he pitched another inning and qualified for the list over at BA.

See, but here's where you msis the patented Big Picture: The "top 3" players in the Reds farm system were all acquired in the last 2 drafts. They've scarcely learned to lace their pants as professional athletes, and they're already the singular hope of the franchise.

And, for that matter, you can cite performance statistics, but I argue that they're totally garbage at this point because players drafted as highly as them are SUPPOSED to blow their competition apart at the early levels. There was a large contingent of Travis Wood supporters around here this past summer that were excited by the numbers he was throwing in rookie ball, but he was merely doing what someone in his draft position should do: dominate players who are going to wash out of the game entirely or be career minor leaguers. Wood spent an entire summer throwing a good change against guys who can't adjust to speed variations. That's not impressive in the slightest -- wake me when they continue to produce at higher levels in the farm system against real competition. For now, they're nothing but speculation, and you can never sanely rate speculation ahead of other teams that have players developing forward and producing results in the higher minor leagues.

Every team has players who dominate rookie ball and A-ball -- that's what high draft picks do. Those players move forward and it's what happens to them when they reach real competition against older, more experienced, and more talented players.

Further, it is telling how far down in the minor leagues every one of these players are. The top two pitching prospects, Homer Bailey and Travis Wood, have hundreds and hundreds of minor league innings in front of them before either one will be even close to major league ready. That's thousands of pitches, any one of which could tear a ligment and turn them from the next big thing to the next Chris Gruler. How can you give a system anything other than a low ranking when the prospects are still at the bottom of the mountain, especially when other clubs have people of similar talent and calibur climbing closer to the summit?

The Reds ranking is dead on, and it's the main reason why the team is in no danger of competing in the next few years.

Cedric
02-09-2006, 03:22 AM
The Cardinals have crap in their system. I can't understand why everyone wants the guy to explain any further his opinion. He already did that before. It's not like it's so clear cut, the Cardinals system is junk right now.

SteelSD
02-09-2006, 03:39 AM
Every team has players who dominate rookie ball and A-ball -- that's what high draft picks do. Those players move forward and it's what happens to them when they reach real competition against older, more experienced, and more talented players.

Which is why a single Anthony Reyes represents geometrically more value than anyone at the top of the Reds prospect list.

M2
02-09-2006, 11:17 AM
The Cardinals have crap in their system. I can't understand why everyone wants the guy to explain any further his opinion. He already did that before. It's not like it's so clear cut, the Cardinals system is junk right now.

That's desperation talking.

The Cardinals have actual pitching prospects in the upper minors and about to graduate to the majors. If Rasmus is junk, then so is Bruce (btw, I'd argue that both are fine prospects).

Tyler Greene, about whom I'm suspicious, would rate miles above every Reds middle IF prospect at the moment. Cody Haerter's a solid OF bat. Mark McCormick's got a better heater than Homer Bailey with a comparable curve. Heck, A.J. Van Slyke would easily make the Reds' list and he didn't crack the St. Louis top 10.

The Cardinals system has taken a leap forward the past two years and it's blown past a Reds system built at the moment on the backs of two rookie ballers and a guy who had his struggles in Low A.

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 12:57 PM
SteelSD and Caveat Emprorer, you guys didnt seem to get the simple fact that I was answering the question of why I think the Reds have a better system than the Cardinals. I wasnt trying to convince anyone that Those three guys are the saving grace of this franchise. Just a simple arguement on my behalf to the idiotic comment of "every team has the same players because every teamhas a draft each year". Every team does have a draft each year, but every team didnt have guys that performed at the levels that Bruce and Wood, especially guys who we drafted in the first two rounds and played against "bad competition". If that were the case, which other second round picks had a 1.20 ERA? How many first round picks hit 9 home runs last season? Not every team had one, much less two guys like that.

M2
02-09-2006, 01:25 PM
Colby Rasmus only hit 7 HR. Though he had a higher BA, OB and SLG than Bruce without ever dipping a toe into the GCL/AZL level. Nick Webber annhilated short-season ball with a 1.87 ERA and 0.91 WHIP.

Ryan Braun hit 10 HR in his debut and Will Inman pitched every bit as well as Wood did in Pioneer League.

So, there you go, first two teams I looked at had guys who debuted every bit as well as Bruce and Wood PLUS they've got lots of other stuff.

That doesn't even get into the insanity of building your case for organizational strength around kids in rookie ball.

M2
02-09-2006, 01:27 PM
Dreaded double-post.

SteelSD
02-09-2006, 01:33 PM
SteelSD and Caveat Emprorer, you guys didnt seem to get the simple fact that I was answering the question of why I think the Reds have a better system than the Cardinals.

And, as usual, your reasoning is all over the place.

The Reds have a better system than the Cardinals because of the presence of three A-Ballers? Their #2 prospect (Bruce) has fewer than 200 professional AB. Their #3 prospect (Wood) has less than 50 professional IP in his short, fragile career.

Those two guys combined don't come close to equalling the value of a high-level MLB-ready pitching prospect like Anthony Reyes. Ditto if you swap one of those guys out and insert one Mr. David Bailey. You don't seem to understand simple player valuation outside of a vacuum- i.e. that performers higher up on the food chain are worth geometrically more than performers further down.

And after the third prospect on your list, the system falls off a cliff excepting Adam Rosales who we both feel BA dramatically undervalued. But, like the top three, he's going to have to move up the minor league ladder (and quickly considering his age) before we can look to the Reds farm system and proclaim that it's better than really anyone else's.


I wasnt trying to convince anyone that Those three guys are the saving grace of this franchise. Just a simple arguement on my behalf to the idiotic comment of "every team has the same players because every teamhas a draft each year". Every team does have a draft each year, but every team didnt have guys that performed at the levels that Bruce and Wood, especially guys who we drafted in the first two rounds and played against "bad competition". If that were the case, which other second round picks had a 1.20 ERA? How many first round picks hit 9 home runs last season? Not every team had one, much less two guys like that.

If you haven't figured this out, one seasons best 19-year old Rookie or low A-Ball pitcher usually isn't next season's best low or high A-Ball pitcher. The #1 guy (Bailey) has morphed his description from "polished" to "project" in the span of 1.5 minor league seasons. The #2 guy has 200-odd PA. The #3 guy is overmatching hitters with guile rather than pure stuff way down on the farm.

None projects to really help anytime soon- if ever.

That's a crappy CRAPPY list of prospects right now. However, if those same prospects start moving UP the ladder while being high-level performers, you know what happens? Yep. The system starts moving up the ranking list because those players will be more valuable.

It appears that your real problem is that you think low sample-size performers at the bottom of the minor leagues will undoubtedly continue to be performers as they move up the ladder. Of course, that's not how it works for if it was, the Reds would have multiple guys in the mid to high minors who would be replicating their lower-level performances from previous seasons.

But instead we see injury and failure and the Reds end up backfilling the low minors by attending amateur drafts each season and for some reason you seem to think that should allow them to move up in the minor league system rankings- and ahead of teams who actually HAVE impact guys who've moved up.

Right now, they don't have that. Right now they have nothing but low-level maybes and a top 10 list that's heavy on low-quality low-level maybes. That doesn't put them in front of anyone- including the St. Louis Cardinals.

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 01:43 PM
SteelSD, here is what you dont understand.

You said that every team has what the Reds have a #2,3 and Miguel Perez becuase they have a draft every year.

I disagreed, becuase if they did, then where are they? I cant say I know for a fact that no other team had two guys perform at the levels that Wood and Bruce did....but I know for sure that every team didnt.

You always make these long drawn out posts that cover 15 different points in the arguement or response to just one simple point someone else makes.

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 01:53 PM
Colby Rasmus only hit 7 HR. Though he had a higher BA, OB and SLG than Bruce without ever dipping a toe into the GCL/AZL level. Nick Webber annhilated short-season ball with a 1.87 ERA and 0.91 WHIP.

Rasmus and Bruce both played Rookie league ball. I missed Nick Webber, but Nick Webber also came straight from College.



Ryan Braun hit 10 HR in his debut and Will Inman pitched every bit as well as Wood did in Pioneer League.
Ryan Braun is 4 years older than Jay Bruce is. Will Inman performed well. I wasnt argueing that the Reds system was better than the Brewers, who have one of the best in all of baseball.



So, there you go, first two teams I looked at had guys who debuted every bit as well as Bruce and Wood PLUS they've got lots of other stuff.

That doesn't even get into the insanity of building your case for organizational strength around kids in rookie ball.

You also put out college kids compared to high school kids and went out and picked one of the best systems in all of baseball(Brewers) and tried to disprove my point that the Reds have a better system than some.

Caveat Emperor
02-09-2006, 02:13 PM
Every team does have a draft each year, but every team didnt have guys that performed at the levels that Bruce and Wood, especially guys who we drafted in the first two rounds and played against "bad competition". If that were the case, which other second round picks had a 1.20 ERA? How many first round picks hit 9 home runs last season? Not every team had one, much less two guys like that.

Milwaukee had Prince Fielder (7th pick, 2002 draft) who hit 28 home runs in AAA Nashville last year. He performed well against better competition at a higher level of the minor leagues. He has been able to replicate his numbers at every stop in the minors, and now he is ready to contribute to his major league club THIS YEAR. That makes him exponentially more valuable than Jay Bruce, who had a good year, but has not shown the ability to produce consistently year after year (due to his age) and is not close to helping the major league club (due to his inexperience).

Players like Prince Fielder -- advanced in their system -- are the reason why other teams have Farm Systems that are ahead of the Reds. If the Reds had a player like Fielder, they'd be in prime position to be trading for pitching right now, because players closer to the show are WORTH more in real-world value (all ranking numbers aside) than players buried down in the system. The Reds have nothing in the high minors, which is why they're going to head into the season with Dave Williams, Matt Belisle and Luke Hudson battling for a 5th starter spot instead of acquiring someone of value to place in that spot. Instead, the Reds have botched drafts in the past and failed to acquire plus prospects in the trades they've made, preferring to acquire middling-talent pitchers like Elizardo Ramirez and Josh Hancock instead of trying to stock their system with MORE younger talent and playing the numbers game.

And, in addition to advanced players like Fielder, the Berwers also have players who perform at a high level in the low minors as well. They drafted Brendan Katin in the 23rd round out of the University of Miami last year, and he OPSd over 1.000 in the Pioneer League, hitting 8 home runs along the way to a promotion into single-A midseason. By your standards (and by BA's standards), he'd immediately be a top-5 prospect on the Cincinnati Reds. And yeah, he came from college -- but why hold smart drafting against him?

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 02:19 PM
Milwaukee had Prince Fielder (7th pick, 2002 draft) who hit 28 home runs in AAA Nashville last year. He performed well against better competition at a higher level of the minor leagues. He has been able to replicate his numbers at every stop in the minors, and now he is ready to contribute to his major league club THIS YEAR. That makes him exponentially more valuable than Jay Bruce, who had a good year, but has not shown the ability to produce consistently year after year (due to his age) and is not close to helping the major league club (due to his inexperience).

Players like Prince Fielder -- advanced in their system -- are the reason why other teams have Farm Systems that are ahead of the Reds. If the Reds had a player like Fielder, they'd be in prime position to be trading for pitching right now, because players closer to the show are WORTH more in real-world value (all ranking numbers aside) than players buried down in the system. The Reds have nothing in the high minors, which is why they're going to head into the season with Dave Williams, Matt Belisle and Luke Hudson battling for a 5th starter spot instead of acquiring someone of value to place in that spot.

And, in addition to advanced players like Fielder, the Berwers also have players who perform at a high level in the low minors as well. They drafted Brendan Katin in the 23rd round out of the University of Miami last year, and he OPSd over 1.000 in the Pioneer League, hitting 8 home runs along the way to a promotion into single-A midseason. By your standards (and by BA's standards), he'd immediately be a top-5 prospect on the Cincinnati Reds. And yeah, he came from college -- but why hold smart drafting against him?


Where did anyone say the Reds had a better system than the Brewers? The Brewers have the best system in all of baseball except for probably the Dodgers.

No one with any knowledge of baseball would say the Reds have a better system than the Brewers. The same cant be said of the Nationals, Cardinals, Astros, Mets....

And Im not holding anything against him, but a guy who performed well in the low minors as a 21 or 22 year old college product isnt the same as a high school kid who is 18 producing at the same levels.

lollipopcurve
02-09-2006, 02:50 PM
The #3 guy is overmatching hitters with guile rather than pure stuff way down on the farm.

Very poor characterization of Travis Wood, in my opinion. Mid-90s fastball, a cutter, and a changeup that has been ranked 70 on the 20-80 scale. That's pure stuff, not guile.


The #1 guy (Bailey) has morphed his description from "polished" to "project" in the span of 1.5 minor league seasons.

Hardly. Bailey just needs innings and some work on his off-speed stuff. The fastball and curve are there. The mechanics are there. In my view, "projects" are guys with big arms but no real secondary pitch, zero command and/or poor mechanics. The Colt Griffins and Jason Neighborgalls of the world. Bailey doesn't need anything resembling an overhaul or an epiphany. He was ranked the #2 prospect and best pitcher in the Midwest League by BA, and that bestows a fairly significant value on him in the industry, I think.

I'm not going to debate the Reds system vs any other system. But I am far more optimistic about what will emerge from the last two drafts than many here.

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 03:16 PM
lollipopcurve, I am right there with you with the assessment you just made.

M2
02-09-2006, 03:57 PM
Rasmus and Bruce both played Rookie league ball. I missed Nick Webber, but Nick Webber also came straight from College.

So what if Webber came from college. That just means he's likely to advance faster.



Ryan Braun is 4 years older than Jay Bruce is. Will Inman performed well. I wasnt argueing that the Reds system was better than the Brewers, who have one of the best in all of baseball.

You also put out college kids compared to high school kids and went out and picked one of the best systems in all of baseball(Brewers) and tried to disprove my point that the Reds have a better system than some.

A) Braun also detonated Low A and will either start in AA or be there by the All-Star break. So what if he's four years older, he's damn good.

B) Your point, such as it was, was this "If that were the case, which other second round picks had a 1.20 ERA? How many first round picks hit 9 home runs last season? Not every team had one, much less two guys like that."

I went out and grabbed the Cardinals and Brewers out of a hat (two teams the Reds need to catch up to someday if they ever want to win anything) and lo and behold it turns out that find Bruce and Wood are hardly uncommon animals. I'll leaving the yes-buts to you since it's all you've got, but the point is that THE ABSOLUTE BEST THING THE REDS SYSTEM HAS GOING FOR IT AT THIS MOMENT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN FIND ALL OVER THE GAME OF BASEBALL.

Sidenote on Miguel Perez: He may not need to hit to be a good catcher, but he damn sure needs to hit to be a good player. Right now he'd be lucky to have the career of Terry McGriff.

M2
02-09-2006, 04:05 PM
Hardly. Bailey just needs innings and some work on his off-speed stuff. The fastball and curve are there. The mechanics are there. In my view, "projects" are guys with big arms but no real secondary pitch, zero command and/or poor mechanics. The Colt Griffins and Jason Neighborgalls of the world. Bailey doesn't need anything resembling an overhaul or an epiphany. He was ranked the #2 prospect and best pitcher in the Midwest League by BA, and that bestows a fairly significant value on him in the industry, I think.

Bailey's mechanics aren't there. If they were he'd find the strikezone with better frequency and not be feast or famine out on the mound. His mechanics are the opposite of there. He's got some stuff, but he's extremely spotty.

I don't disagree that Bailey has value at the moment (one of the reasons why the Reds ought to be willing to trade him in the right deal) or that he could get a lot better, but he needs more than innings and better off-speed stuff. His ace and deuce need work too.

lollipopcurve
02-09-2006, 04:20 PM
Bailey's mechanics aren't there. If they were he'd find the strikezone with better frequency and not be feast or famine out on the mound. His mechanics are the opposite of there. He's got some stuff, but he's extremely spotty.

I don't disagree that Bailey has value at the moment (one of the reasons why the Reds ought to be willing to trade him in the right deal) or that he could get a lot better, but he needs more than innings and better off-speed stuff. His ace and deuce need work too.

We'll just have to disagree. This guy's got one of the smoothest deliveries I've ever seen. His fastball has the requisite velocity and movement. His curveball has the requisite pace and break. Those pitches do not need "development," at least not in my lexicon. What he needs, at least according to what I've read, are innings so that he can develop consistency with his off-speed stuff (remember that he was mandated to throw his change a certain # or % of the time last year, possibly resulting in some of his BB issues) and to work on stuff like holding runners and fielding his position. They want him to get stronger, too, which should come naturally with time.

You can point to his ERA and say he's a mediocre prospect. That's one way of looking at him. But in my view, there is enough other evidence, statistical and anecdotal, that says Bailey is a premium prospect, perhaps one of the 10 best pitching prospects in the minors. That said, he should not be rushed, and I think we agree there.

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 04:27 PM
So what if Webber came from college. That just means he's likely to advance faster.
Yeah, he might advance faster, but that doesnt mean he is better.





A) Braun also detonated Low A and will either start in AA or be there by the All-Star break. So what if he's four years older, he's damn good.
He was supposed to detonate low A ball at his age. I think Ryan Braun is real good. But he did exactly what he was supposed to do being a first round pick in low A ball.



B) Your point, such as it was, was this "If that were the case, which other second round picks had a 1.20 ERA? How many first round picks hit 9 home runs last season? Not every team had one, much less two guys like that."

I went out and grabbed the Cardinals and Brewers out of a hat (two teams the Reds need to catch up to someday if they ever want to win anything) and lo and behold it turns out that find Bruce and Wood are hardly uncommon animals. I'll leaving the yes-buts to you since it's all you've got, but the point is that THE ABSOLUTE BEST THING THE REDS SYSTEM HAS GOING FOR IT AT THIS MOMENT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN FIND ALL OVER THE GAME OF BASEBALL.
All over baseball? What teams have an 18 year old lefty who hits 94mph and has a plus change up? Of those teams that do, who has an 18 year old outfielder with good plate discipline, good power, plus fielding and a plus arm?
You simply cant compare college kids in low minors to high school kids in low minors. Its an unfair comparison as far as determining the kids actual talent. Who will be MLB ready sooner, odds are its the college drafted kid, but who is going to be the better talent in the end doesnt come down to a 21 year old doing well in the low minors.

flyer85
02-09-2006, 04:44 PM
The Reds farm system is not very good, no way around that. Is there some talent? Yes, but it is a long way from the majors.

I was unhappy with the drafting of Bailey and Bruce(preferred Diamond and Carillo). Wanted Suzuki instead of BJ.

The other problem is that the Reds don't have enough marketable affordable talent at the major league level to replenish their upper minors. They really have no choice except hope some guys really start to develop and don't get injured.

M2
02-09-2006, 04:57 PM
We'll just have to disagree. This guy's got one of the smoothest deliveries I've ever seen. His fastball has the requisite velocity and movement. His curveball has the requisite pace and break. Those pitches do not need "development," at least not in my lexicon. What he needs, at least according to what I've read, are innings so that he can develop consistency with his off-speed stuff (remember that he was mandated to throw his change a certain # or % of the time last year, possibly resulting in some of his BB issues) and to work on stuff like holding runners and fielding his position. They want him to get stronger, too, which should come naturally with time.

You can point to his ERA and say he's a mediocre prospect. That's one way of looking at him. But in my view, there is enough other evidence, statistical and anecdotal, that says Bailey is a premium prospect, perhaps one of the 10 best pitching prospects in the minors. That said, he should not be rushed, and I think we agree there.


Smooth doesn't mean to much to me when it can't find it's mark.

FWIW, I'm not saying Homer's a mediocre prospect. However, what I am saying and what I've always said (and what Steel pointed out earlier) is that he's a project. The kid's not a ready-made. That's not his fault, almost no one his age is. As for one of the 10 best pitching prospects in the minors, BA (which loves Bailey) didn't rank him that high last year and it sure as shooting won't do it this year. Statistically he'd do well to make a top 100 for RHPs.

lollipopcurve
02-09-2006, 05:13 PM
FWIW, I'm not saying Homer's a mediocre prospect. However, what I am saying and what I've always said (and what Steel pointed out earlier) is that he's a project. The kid's not a ready-made. That's not his fault, almost no one his age is. As for one of the 10 best pitching prospects in the minors, BA (which loves Bailey) didn't rank him that high last year and it sure as shooting won't do it this year. Statistically he'd do well to make a top 100 for RHPs.

What I'm saying, and what I've said since the day he was drafted, is that the kid appears to have ace-level talent, and for that reason I've always been glad he's in the system. 2005 did absolutely nothing to dissuade me from that opinion. Just as I feel you and Steel and others undervalue the guy, I'm sure many feel I overvalue him. No biggie.
On stats -- Homer's got some nice peripherals (k/9. HRs against, BA against) for a 19-year-old in the Midwest League. You gotta look at those to evaluate his performance, too.

M2
02-09-2006, 05:17 PM
Yeah, he might advance faster, but that doesnt mean he is better.

Nor does it mean Wood's better. All it means is that Wood's not as unique as you positioned him.


He was supposed to detonate low A ball at his age. I think Ryan Braun is real good. But he did exactly what he was supposed to do being a first round pick in low A ball.

Jay Bruce didn't detonate A ball as a first round pick. He hasn't risen that high. Homer Bailey didn't detonate A ball last year and he was a first-round pick from the year before.

Though once again the point you claimed that Bruce was unique. I love him, cyberdrafted him, I was the first person to mention his name on this board, but much as I like him as a prospect I'm not so obtuse as to think he's unique.


All over baseball? What teams have an 18 year old lefty who hits 94mph and has a plus change up? Of those teams that do, who has an 18 year old outfielder with good plate discipline, good power, plus fielding and a plus arm?
You simply cant compare college kids in low minors to high school kids in low minors. Its an unfair comparison as far as determining the kids actual talent. Who will be MLB ready sooner, odds are its the college drafted kid, but who is going to be the better talent in the end doesnt come down to a 21 year old doing well in the low minors.

A) Yes, all over baseball. You're just too lazy to look. Either that or you don't want to burst this bubble you've created for yourself that the Reds have done something unique and wonderful.

B) The world is full of kids who hit 94 with another pitch. I went to high school with one. Unfortunately most never pitch in the majors.

C) Outfielders who can hit and field a bit aren't anything that just got invented by Jay Bruce.

D) You're right, you simply can't compare more advanced players to less advanced players. More advanced are worth a lot more.

E) Who is going to be a better talent in the long run is something that most no one does a good job of determining. The usual argument for prep arms, for instance, is based on ignorance. BA provides a classic example every year. Their failure rate on highly projected teenage hurlers makes for good comedy, but that's about it. Ryan Anderson is all too typical of the pitfalls inherent in "projectibility." Fans always think their system's prospects are more projectible. You don't know who's going to be a better talent in the end. You're just insisting the scenario that works best for the team you root for happens to be the operating intelligence at work here. It's not. You're grasping.

M2
02-09-2006, 05:22 PM
On stats -- Homer's got some nice peripherals (k/9. HRs against, BA against) for a 19-year-old in the Midwest League. You gotta look at those to evaluate his performance, too.

And I do. He'd still be lucky to make a top 100 RHPs even with those numbers if you were doing a purely statistical evaluation.

lollipopcurve
02-09-2006, 05:24 PM
More advanced are worth a lot more.

To what degree?

For example, who would you rather have, Chris Lambert or Homer Bailey? Abe Alvarez or Travis Wood? Danny Putnam or Jay Bruce? The former guys, simply because they're older?
I'll take the latter in every case.

lollipopcurve
02-09-2006, 05:29 PM
He'd still be lucky to make a top 100 RHPs even with those numbers if you were doing a purely statistical evaluation.

Depends on how the values for k/9, HR rate, BA against and age (a stat) are weighted.

KoryMac5
02-09-2006, 05:32 PM
Statistically he'd do well to make a top 100 for RHP


91. Homer Bailey, RHP, Reds, Age 21
Acquired: 1st round, 2004, La Grange HS (La Grange, TX)

Another in a long lineage of raw, fire-balling Texas right-handers, Bailey sports a mid-90s fastball and a hammer curve that wows scouts. The problem right now (as it is with most young hard throwers) is that his off-speed stuff leaves much to be desired. He's going to need that third pitch if he's to succeed as a starter at the highest level. The Reds are handling him carefully in terms of workload, which is a point in his favor, but he struggled badly with his control last season in the Midwest League. If Bailey stays healthy, harnesses his stuff and cultivates a deeper repertoire, he'll be a special pitcher. But those are a lot of "ifs."

Wow somebody who ranked Homer in the top 100 of all prospects this year didn't take that long to find either. Courtesy of Fox sports

M2
02-09-2006, 05:34 PM
To what degree?

For example, who would you rather have, Chris Lambert or Homer Bailey? Abe Alvarez or Travis Wood? Danny Putnam or Jay Bruce? The former guys, simply because they're older?
I'll take the latter in every case.

I'd rather have Thomas Diamond that Homer Bailey, that's for sure.

Convenient pick on Abe Alvarez. I choose Jon Papelbon.

Who's worth more, Jeremy Hermida or Jay Bruce? Bruce is cut from the Hermida mold. He could be every bit as good or better. Yet who's worth more and why? Not really a hard answer when you get right down to it.

M2
02-09-2006, 05:35 PM
Statistically he'd do well to make a top 100 for RHP


91. Homer Bailey, RHP, Reds, Age 21
Acquired: 1st round, 2004, La Grange HS (La Grange, TX)

Another in a long lineage of raw, fire-balling Texas right-handers, Bailey sports a mid-90s fastball and a hammer curve that wows scouts. The problem right now (as it is with most young hard throwers) is that his off-speed stuff leaves much to be desired. He's going to need that third pitch if he's to succeed as a starter at the highest level. The Reds are handling him carefully in terms of workload, which is a point in his favor, but he struggled badly with his control last season in the Midwest League. If Bailey stays healthy, harnesses his stuff and cultivates a deeper repertoire, he'll be a special pitcher. But those are a lot of "ifs."

Wow somebody who ranked Homer in the top 100 of all prospects this year didn't take that long to find either. Courtesy of Fox sports


Wow, totally based on projectibles and not stats. In fact, Fox doesn't mention a single sat in its summation.

M2
02-09-2006, 05:42 PM
Depends on how the values for k/9, HR rate, BA against and age (a stat) are weighted.

Weighted? More like slanted. Those are peripherals. You have to ignore WHIP and ERA to make a case that Bailey was a statistically good pitcher last year. Bailey was a kid who struggled, but left open the possibility that he'll deliver better in the future. Though a fair assessment of his work isn't what you're after here.

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 05:45 PM
Nor does it mean Wood's better. All it means is that Wood's not as unique as you positioned him.
Never said it did.



Jay Bruce didn't detonate A ball as a first round pick. He has risen that high. Homer Bailey didn't detonate A ball last year and he was a first-round pick from the year before.
I agree. The difference being that Ryan Braun, the example you provided came from college to play well in A ball, where as Bruce came from high school to play in A ball. Braun is older, more physically mature, and has faced better competition to that point. He should be more polished than Bruce. But what will Bruce do in A ball in 3 years when he is 21? Odds are we wont know becuase he will be playing in Chattanooga or Louisville.



Though once again the point you claimed that Bruce was unique. I love him, cyberdrafted him, I was the first person to mention his name on this board, but much as I like him as a prospect I'm not so obtuse as to think he's unique.
No, I am claiming the combo of both Bruce and Wood being in the Reds low minors as being unique that most teams dont have two 18 year olds putting up the numbers that those two have is something that most other teams didnt have. Which was in response to SteelSD claiming that Bruce, Bailey and Wood werent anything special because every team has a draft every year and every team gets a guy just like them.




A) Yes, all over baseball. You're just too lazy to look. Either that or you don't want to burst this bubble you've created for yourself that the Reds have done something unique and wonderful.
There are a bunch of 18 year olds who averaged a home run more often than Bruce did? A bunch with 18 year olds who had slugging percentages near his? There are a bunch of 18 year old pitchers with the statlines that Travis Wood had? No there arent. Not on one team. Yeah Colby Rasmus hit well, and Chris volstad pitched pretty well...there are some guys who performed pretty well, but not two such guys from one such organization. Not on every team thats for sure.



B) The world is full of kids who hit 94 with another pitch. I went to high school with one. Unfortunately most never pitch in the majors.
The world is definately not full of 18 year old lefties who his 94mph, who have a polished secondary pitch.




D) You're right, you simply can't compare more advanced players to less advanced players. More advanced are worth a lot more.

Then why would you try to do it to disprove me, if you also think you cant compare the two?

lollipopcurve
02-09-2006, 05:55 PM
Though a fair assessment of his work isn't what you're after here.

Sure it is.

You're not.:bash:

KoryMac5
02-09-2006, 06:04 PM
Wow, totally based on projectibles and not stats. In fact, Fox doesn't mention a single sat in its summation.

Baseball America and Fox project prospects on a number of variables including stats. By the way Baseball America ranked Bailey 48th in 2005.

M2
02-09-2006, 06:31 PM
The difference being that Ryan Braun, the example you provided came from college to play well in A ball, where as Bruce came from high school to play in A ball. Braun is older, more physically mature, and has faced better competition to that point. He should be more polished than Bruce. But what will Bruce do in A ball in 3 years when he is 21? Odds are we wont know becuase he will be playing in Chattanooga or Louisville.

Maybe, maybe not. Braun will be in AA at age 22 (bank on it). I'll be happy if Wood can make it to 22 without major surgery.


No, I am claiming the combo of both Bruce and Wood being in the Reds low minors as being unique that most teams dont have two 18 year olds putting up the numbers that those two have is something that most other teams didnt have. Which was in response to SteelSD claiming that Bruce, Bailey and Wood werent anything special because every team has a draft every year and every team gets a guy just like them.

To be honest, a lot of teams do better than Bruce, Bailey and Wood over two drafts. Anyway, you seem to think there's something magical about age 18. There isn't.


There are a bunch of 18 year olds who averaged a home run more often than Bruce did? A bunch with 18 year olds who had slugging percentages near his? There are a bunch of 18 year old pitchers with the statlines that Travis Wood had? No there arent. Not on one team. Yeah Colby Rasmus hit well, and Chris volstad pitched pretty well...there are some guys who performed pretty well, but not two such guys from one such organization. Not on every team thats for sure.

Again, if you want to fall in love with his age that's your mistake. A .484 SLG isn't exactly earth-shattering. Colby Rasmus, from what you claim is an inferior Cardinals system, had a .514 SLG playing tougher overall competition and without the benefit of a Pioneer League power boost.

Kyle Blanks, in what you claim was the supposedly inferior Padres system was a prep player who posted a .291/.420/.500 line in the AZL. Joseph Dickerson, Royals AZL, 18, .294/.371/..491. The Royals also an 18-year-old named Jeff Bianchi go .408/.484/.745, but you'll claim he doesn't count because he's just a SS. Junior Contreras, Mets GCL 1B, 18, went .291/.401/.500. Josh Flores, 19, Astros, finished in A ball, .331/.380/.511.

That's five organizations you claimed the Reds could dust with teenage bats that slugged better than Jay Bruce.


Then why would you try to do it to disprove me, if you also think you cant compare the two?

You just don't catch on. If more advanced players are worth more then the Reds' less advanced players are worth less, meaning the system should rank lower.

lollipopcurve
02-09-2006, 06:38 PM
Convenient pick on Abe Alvarez. I choose Jon Papelbon.

Who's worth more, Jeremy Hermida or Jay Bruce? Bruce is cut from the Hermida mold. He could be every bit as good or better. Yet who's worth more and why? Not really a hard answer when you get right down to it.

I chose Alvarez because he's a lefty, like Wood. If older prospects are "a lot" more valuable than younger ones, I figure it's fair to ask if you'd prefer a once-hot but still not-old AAA guy vs. an 18-year-old who hasn't risen above short-season ball. Seems like you'd take Wood, too.

What I'm getting at here is that statements like "more advanced are worth more" strikes me as lacking enough subtlety to truly evaluate and compare prospects. If you really believe that "more advanced is worth A LOT MORE than less advanced," then I think you will take Lambert over Bailey and Alvarez over Wood. But what I think you truly believe is that "elite and more advanced" is worth a lot more than "elite and less advanced." (I agree, too.) That's what allows you to compare Bruce and Hermida, and Papelbon and Wood, but reject as somehow unfair the comparison of Wood and Alvarez.

Just admitting that you have a problem calling Bailey and Wood elite is the first step to recovery.

lollipopcurve
02-09-2006, 06:40 PM
Kyle Blanks, in what you claim was the supposedly inferior Padres system was a prep player

Kyle Blanks was a JUCO draftee. He played on the same team as Milton Loo.
Not that it messes with your argument much...

M2
02-09-2006, 06:42 PM
Sure it is.

You're not.:bash:

So explain how a pitcher with a 4.43 ERA, 1.46 WHIP, 7.73 H/9, 5.38 BB/9, 0.43 HR/9, 10.85 K/9 counts as anything other than "a kid who struggled, but left open the possibility that he'll deliver better in the future."

You're the one who tossed out the puffery that his stats could somehow land him in a pitching prospects top 10 list. It's totally indefensible.

M2
02-09-2006, 06:55 PM
I chose Alvarez because he's a lefty, like Wood. If older prospects are "a lot" more valuable than younger ones.

Except that I don't consider Alvarez much of a prospect and I doubt you do either.


What I'm getting at here is that statements like "more advanced are worth more" strikes me as lacking enough subtlety to truly evaluate and compare prospects. If you really believe that "more advanced is worth A LOT MORE than less advanced," then I think you will take Lambert over Bailey and Alvarez over Wood. But what I think you truly believe is that "elite and more advanced" is worth a lot more than "elite and less advanced." (I agree, too.) That's what allows you to compare Bruce and Hermida, and Papelbon and Wood, but reject as somehow unfair the comparison of Wood and Alvarez.

You're splitting hairs. Show me a top prospect in AA and one in rookie ball and the one in AA is worth more. You know that. I know that. Everyone on the damn planet knows it. If you feel the need to toss the Abe Alvarez's into the conversation to create a false parallel, that's your issue, not mine. What allows me to compare Hermida to Bruce and Papelbon to Wood is that I'm putting my apples with apples.

On Lambert vs. Bailey though, I'll take Lambert. He throws just as hard and has three pitches, though he needs a more consistent delivery.


Just admitting that you have a problem calling Bailey and Wood elite is the first step to recovery.

Calling either Bailey or Wood "elite" turns "elite" into a nonsensical term. If they're elite, then the minor leagues are overflowing with elite pitchers.

What they are is kids with some potential and years to go before they'll reach the majors and actually help a team win more than it loses. I like Wood's potential better than Bailey's, fwiw.

P.S. good catch on Blanks. He was JUCO (though still 18 last season). He also played 1B, which I should have mentioned.

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 07:26 PM
Maybe, maybe not. Braun will be in AA at age 22 (bank on it). I'll be happy if Wood can make it to 22 without major surgery.

Why are you now trying to compare a pitching prospect and a hitting prospect?



To be honest, a lot of teams do better than Bruce, Bailey and Wood over two drafts. Anyway, you seem to think there's magical about age 18. There isn't.

Yeah some teams have. But the Reds have done better than Bruce Bailey and Wood over two drafts too. There are teams who havent done better though.



Again, if you want to fall in love with his age that's your mistake. A .484 SLG isn't exactly earth-shattering. Colby Rasmus, from what you claim is an inferior Cardinals system, had a .514 SLG playing tougher overall competition and without the benefit of a Pioneer League power boost.
Both Rasmus and Bruce played rookie ball last year. I dont know if the Appalachian League is tougher competition than that of the Pioneer League.



Kyle Blanks, in what you claim was the supposedly inferior Padres system was a prep player who posted a .291/.420/.500 line in the AZL. Joseph Dickerson, Royals AZL, 18, .294/.371/..491. The Royals also an 18-year-old named Jeff Bianchi go .408/.484/.745, but you'll claim he doesn't count because he's just a SS. Junior Contreras, Mets GCL 1B, 18, went .291/.401/.500. Josh Flores, 19, Astros, finished in A ball, .331/.380/.511.

That's five organizations you claimed the Reds could dust with teenage bats that slugged better than Jay Bruce.
Now which of those teams had an 18 year old pitcher who did what Travis Wood did?




You just don't catch on. If more advanced players are worth more than the Reds' less advanced players are worth less, meaning the system should rank lower.

Just becuase a guy is closer to helping the big league team does not make a player more valueable in my mind.

Caveat Emperor
02-09-2006, 07:35 PM
Just becuase a guy is closer to helping the big league team does not make a player more valueable in my mind.

So, by your logic, a flip of Bailey to the Cardinals for Reyes would be a fair trade?

They'd hang you from the arch in St. Louis if you were the Cards GM and made that deal.

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 07:43 PM
Well emperor, I cant say I would or wouldnt make that trade if I were in the Cards organization, becuase I dont have a scouting report, or in depth details on Reyes and his abilities other than what his numbers show. If I were the Reds, i still dont know about the deal becuase I still dont know the extent of Reyes.

I think you misunderstood "my logic". My logic was simply that a player that is older and further in the minors isnt always a better player in the end becuase he is further advanced.

Ones ability to help the team in the future, is where there value is. Not how soon they can help said team.

registerthis
02-09-2006, 07:49 PM
Well emperor, I cant say I would or wouldnt make that trade if I were in the Cards organization, becuase I dont have a scouting report, or in depth details on Reyes and his abilities other than what his numbers show. If I were the Reds, i still dont know about the deal becuase I still dont know the extent of Reyes.

I think you misunderstood "my logic". My logic was simply that a player that is older and further in the minors isnt always a better player in the end becuase he is further advanced.

Ones ability to help the team in the future, is where there value is. Not how soon they can help said team.

Realized potential is always worth more than just plain old potential. That's true everywhere you go.

Cedric
02-09-2006, 07:55 PM
So, by your logic, a flip of Bailey to the Cardinals for Reyes would be a fair trade?

They'd hang you from the arch in St. Louis if you were the Cards GM and made that deal.

How does his quote equate to you comparing two specific players? He never mentioned names. He said it doesn't ALWAYS.

Cedric
02-09-2006, 07:56 PM
Realized potential is always worth more than just plain old potential. That's true everywhere you go.

Not if that unrealized potential has a much higher ceiling and is showing signs of breaking out. Which I think is his point.

M2
02-09-2006, 08:40 PM
Both Rasmus and Bruce played rookie ball last year. I dont know if the Appalachian League is tougher competition than that of the Pioneer League.

Bruce played most of his season in the GCL, an easier league. Then he stepped up to the Pioneer League, a hitter's paradise.


Now which of those teams had an 18 year old pitcher who did what Travis Wood did?

How about you get off your lazy backside and figure it out for your damn self? Though, just because you won't:

Padres - Geoff Vandel (18), Nelson Frieri (20)
Astros - Troy Patton (19), Samuel Gervacio (20)
Royals - Brent Fisher (17/18), Gilbert de la Vara (20)
Mets - No one
Cardinals - N/A, they (wisely) draft more advanced arms these days

Now do the Reds have a Cesar Carrillo and or a catching prospect like George Kottaras?

How about Justin Hirsch and Jimmy Bathmaier? Anything even remotely like them?

Then surely they have a hitting tandem like Alex Gordon and Billy Butler, right?

No? Oh, what about an all-universe CF prospect like Lasting Milledge and the best pitcher from last year's draft, Mike Pelfrey?

Then surely they have an Anthony Reyes ready to graduate to the majors and a pack of arms who work in the 90s all slated to be in the high minors, don't they?

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 08:50 PM
m2, I dont appreciate the language being used toward me.

M2
02-09-2006, 09:00 PM
m2, I dont appreciate the language being used toward me.

I don't appreciate having to do legwork you're too lazy to do yourself. You're uninformed and act as if the fact that you don't know something (despite never having looked into the matter) means that it must not exist. All it really means is you haven't bothered to notice players like Flores, Bianchi and Vandel in other organizations.

BenHayes
02-09-2006, 09:17 PM
It does seem to be a year by year thing.If Gardner,Hall,,Pauly,Basham can bounce back from arm problems kind of like Dumatrait did last year i don't see it looking so bad.

BenHayes
02-09-2006, 09:23 PM
However outside of H.Bailey ther aren't any #1 on the horizons apparent.

paintmered
02-09-2006, 09:36 PM
Bruce played most of his season in the GCL, an easier league. Then he stepped up to the Pioneer League, a hitter's paradise.



How about you get off your lazy backside and figure it out for your damn self? Though, just because you won't:

Padres - Geoff Vandel (18), Nelson Frieri (20)
Astros - Troy Patton (19), Samuel Gervacio (20)
Royals - Brent Fisher (17/18), Gilbert de la Vara (20)
Mets - No one
Cardinals - N/A, they (wisely) draft more advanced arms these days

Now do the Reds have a Cesar Carrillo and or a catching prospect like George Kottaras?

How about Justin Hirsch and Jimmy Bathmaier? Anything even remotely like them?

Then surely they have a hitting tandem like Alex Gordon and Billy Butler, right?

No? Oh, what about an all-universe CF prospect like Lasting Milledge and the best pitcher from last year's draft, Mike Pelfrey?

Then surely they have an Anthony Reyes ready to graduate to the majors and a pack of arms who work in the 90s all slated to be in the high minors, don't they?


There are ways to make counter-points without being nasty. I'd really hate to see you in trouble over this.

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 10:01 PM
How about you get off your lazy backside and figure it out for your damn self? Though, just because you won't:

Padres - Geoff Vandel (18), Nelson Frieri (20)
Astros - Troy Patton (19), Samuel Gervacio (20)
Royals - Brent Fisher (17/18), Gilbert de la Vara (20)
Mets - No one
Cardinals - N/A, they (wisely) draft more advanced arms these days

Vandel made 2 starts in 11 appearances. Relief pitching isnt quite the same as Starting. Frieri, if you are talking about the SD prospect Ernesto Frieri. He put up good numbers in the Arizona League though. Troy Patton sure has good numbers, but a year older and a year more expeirenced than Wood. Gervacio was 20 and played most of his season in rookie ball. He put up amazing numbers there but again, you are talking about a relief pitcher. He didnt make a single start. He made 21 appearances, yet only pitched 33 innings. Fisher had an ERA slightly over 3 in rookie ball, he cant really be compared to Wood, espcially if what you say about the Pioneer League being a hitters heaven, since Wood posted very good numbers there as an 18 year old. De la Vara is 20, played rookie ball and made 1 start and 16 relief appearances. He averaged 3 innings per appearance. Not exactly comparable to Wood. So you threw out some names, but I didnt really see anyone there that compared to what Travis Wood did(with exception of Patton).



Now do the Reds have a Cesar Carrillo and or a catching prospect like George Kottaras?
Carrillo has yet to show me anything that makes him any more valueable, or even as valueable a prospect that Homer Bailey is. He has good strikeout and walk numbers, but his performance in his 7 outtings in Lake Elsinore scare me (7 starts, 7.01 ERA). Kottaras is a catcher with NO power to speak of at all who hits for a decent average, but performed pretty poorly in the AFL. He may have a slightly better bat than Miguel Perez, but I cant comment on his defense, but that is where Miguel excels.



How about Justin Hirsch and Jimmy Bathmaier? Anything even remotely like them?
Well if you mean Jason Hirsh, then I dont know if they do have a 23 year old who performed as good as him. Hirsh also turned 24 in the offseason. Barthmaier is a pretty good prospect, he is young and has good stuff. I am not sold that either of them are better than Homer Bailey.



Then surely they have a hitting tandem like Alex Gordon and Billy Butler, right?

No, the Reds dont. Butler seems to be a straight shot to DH though, as his defense is horrid. Both are very good though.



No? Oh, what about an all-universe CF prospect like Lasting Milledge and the best pitcher from last year's draft, Mike Pelfrey?
Pelfrey just signed, came from College and has yet to play any professional baseball. I dont think the Reds have anyone as good as him currently in their system, but he is also a bit older than both of the Reds best pitching prospects. Milledge is still young, but has some little power to this point in his career. His slugging percentage was .450 last season. He has a high obp and a good average and showed some power in the AFL, but I dont consider Milledge an all universe prospect, although he is very good.



Then surely they have an Anthony Reyes ready to graduate to the majors and a pack of arms who work in the 90s all slated to be in the high minors, don't they?
Again, for the second time, just because someone is ready to make an impact right now, does not make them a better prospect than someone who wont be ready for another year or two or three. It just means they are ready now.

KoryMac5
02-09-2006, 10:14 PM
I don't appreciate having to do legwork you're too lazy to do yourself. You're uninformed and act as if the fact that you don't know something (despite never having looked into the matter) means that it must not exist. All it really means is you haven't bothered to notice players like Flores, Bianchi and Vandel in other organizations.


Sports are great in the way that you can talk about them and debate them for hours at a time. However I feel that there are much better ways to conduct a healthy debate than be rude or degrading to each other. I think both sides have great points which they are stressing but there comes a point in every debate that both sides have to agree to disagree. I think that point came a few posts ago. So lets crack open a beer and sit back and relax because spring training is around the corner.

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 10:20 PM
Sports are great in the way that you can talk about them and debate them for hours at a time. However I feel that there are much better ways to conduct a healthy debate than be rude or degrading to each other. I think both sides have great points which they are stressing but there comes a point in every debate that both sides have to agree to disagree. I think that point came a few posts ago. So lets crack open a beer and sit back and relax because spring training is around the corner.
I will make mine a coca cola classic and go with it.

cincyinco
02-09-2006, 10:28 PM
Yeesh. I think what guys like M2 and Steele forget when they evaluate prospects to determine their worth is their overall ceiling. When you draft, you should not draft for need but for the best talent available, no matter what the position of that player is. Whether its college or HighSchool talent doesn't matter. You dont skip Justin Upton in the draft becuase you need a college arm that can be ready now. The Reds already made this mistake by drafting Ryan Wagner.

That being said, I think a lot of posts in this thread seem to take sides with how to evaluate talent. There is something to be said for performance with prospects, but there is also sometihng to be said about projectability and long term worth. This is why you see sites such as baseballamerica give more worth to a guy like Bailey than a lot of other places would. its not a bad things, its just different than how some would rank them.

I think the best way of course, is to take into consideration all aspects of the prospect. Level of their performance, age relative to league, tools, projectability, and their performance relative to age/league. m2, steele, caveat seem to lean more towards stats, where doug, lollipop, and perhaps myself seem to lean a bit toward projectability. Big deal.

westofyou
02-09-2006, 10:56 PM
Whether its college or HighSchool talent doesn't matter.

It does when gauging the arrival of your investment, you have to feed the beast, trolling for the next superstar is fine and dandy but someone has to pay the bills and that is the guy who fills the needs that your team lacks.

The draft shouldn't be looked at like a weekend in Vegas, it should be looked like a year there and maybe more... work the thing, don't let it work you.

Team Clark
02-09-2006, 11:09 PM
Bruce played most of his season in the GCL, an easier league. Then he stepped up to the Pioneer League, a hitter's paradise.



How about you get off your lazy backside and figure it out for your damn self? Though, just because you won't:

Padres - Geoff Vandel (18), Nelson Frieri (20)
Astros - Troy Patton (19), Samuel Gervacio (20)
Royals - Brent Fisher (17/18), Gilbert de la Vara (20)
Mets - No one
Cardinals - N/A, they (wisely) draft more advanced arms these days

Now do the Reds have a Cesar Carrillo and or a catching prospect like George Kottaras?

How about Justin Hirsch and Jimmy Bathmaier? Anything even remotely like them?

Then surely they have a hitting tandem like Alex Gordon and Billy Butler, right?

No? Oh, what about an all-universe CF prospect like Lasting Milledge and the best pitcher from last year's draft, Mike Pelfrey?

Then surely they have an Anthony Reyes ready to graduate to the majors and a pack of arms who work in the 90s all slated to be in the high minors, don't they?

If I ever make it far enough to be a GM I am hiring M2 as my "go to guy". If his stats don't make you think then I don't know what will.

dougdirt
02-09-2006, 11:15 PM
edit....nevermind.

M2
02-09-2006, 11:49 PM
Vandel made 2 starts in 11 appearances. Relief pitching isnt quite the same as Starting.

Vandel threw 31 IP. Wood threw 48.2. If you want to act like there's some sort of major work output between those two figures, then I'll need a detailed explanation as to what happens in those 17.2 critical innings of experience.


Frieri, if you are talking about the SD prospect Ernesto Frieri. He put up good numbers in the Arizona League though. Troy Patton sure has good numbers, but a year older and a year more expeirenced than Wood. Gervacio was 20 and played most of his season in rookie ball. He put up amazing numbers there but again, you are talking about a relief pitcher. He didnt make a single start. He made 21 appearances, yet only pitched 33 innings. Fisher had an ERA slightly over 3 in rookie ball, he cant really be compared to Wood, espcially if what you say about the Pioneer League being a hitters heaven, since Wood posted very good numbers there as an 18 year old. De la Vara is 20, played rookie ball and made 1 start and 16 relief appearances. He averaged 3 innings per appearance. Not exactly comparable to Wood. So you threw out some names, but I didnt really see anyone there that compared to what Travis Wood did(with exception of Patton).

A lot of guys relieve in rookie ball and then go on to start once they hit A ball. As for Fisher, he pitched very well, not as quite as well as Wood, but that was still a real strong start. Quite frankly, the difference between he and Wood wasn't so great that another 50 IP couldn't seen him move ahead of Travis. I'd certainly list it as a comparable career start, not as gaudy, but still highly encouraging. Yeah, Patton's been awesome, that's kind of the point. He's only a year older than Wood and Wood would need to hog wild to catch him.


Carrillo has yet to show me anything that makes him any more valueable, or even as valueable a prospect that Homer Bailey is. He has good strikeout and walk numbers, but his performance in his 7 outtings in Lake Elsinore scare me (7 starts, 7.01 ERA). Kottaras is a catcher with NO power to speak of at all who hits for a decent average, but performed pretty poorly in the AFL. He may have a slightly better bat than Miguel Perez, but I cant comment on his defense, but that is where Miguel excels.

A) Carrillo had an impressive career against top notch competition in college. He works in the same 91-94 range as Bailey. Finished real strong in AA. You'd be coated in drool if the Reds had him.

B) You're killing me with Kottaras has no power. I agree he's no Adam Dunn, but he did hit 11 HR last season and 25 HR in 852 career ABs. Miguel Perez, same age and the guy you've deemed the #4 prospect in the Reds' system, has 7 HR in 1,215 career ABs. Kottaras has a career .296/.392/.461 percentage line and Perez is at .280/.337/.333. One guy has a great approach at the plate and should be a solid hitter in the future, one guy's completely overmatched by anyone who can pitch. I don't care about Perez's defense. Unless Perez learns how to make himself something better than awful at the plate, then his defense is a trivial concern.


Well if you mean Jason Hirsh, then I dont know if they do have a 23 year old who performed as good as him. Hirsh also turned 24 in the offseason. Barthmaier is a pretty good prospect, he is young and has good stuff. I am not sold that either of them are better than Homer Bailey.

Of course you're not sold. Neither pitches for the Reds. Hirsh is 24 and knocking on the door of the majors with some power stuff and a frame to die for. Dude just chewed up and spit out the Texas League. If you've paid any attention to the Reds, then you'd know they've got nothing remotely like him. In fact, the Reds haven't had anything like that in the upper minors in ages. The Reds should open veins for a pitcher like Hirsh.

As for Barthmaier, if he were a Reds prospect we'd be back to the coated in drool scenario for you.


Pelfrey just signed, came from College and has yet to play any professional baseball. I dont think the Reds have anyone as good as him currently in their system, but he is also a bit older than both of the Reds best pitching prospects. Milledge is still young, but has some little power to this point in his career. His slugging percentage was .450 last season. He has a high obp and a good average and showed some power in the AFL, but I dont consider Milledge an all universe prospect, although he is very good.

A) Pelfrey dominated in Division 1 and, once again, a bit older and more advanced than what the Reds have is only a good thing.

B) Milledge is 20, up to AA already and boasts a .313/.382/.485 career percentage line. Dude clearly has skills and that SLG is higher than Jay Bruce's at the moment.


Again, for the second time, just because someone is ready to make an impact right now, does not make them a better prospect than someone who wont be ready for another year or two or three. It just means they are ready now.

Nor does it mean older guys aren't better prospects. What it means is they cleared hurdles the Reds kids haven't. Hell, Bailey's yet to fully clear a hurdle in pro ball. For instance, Homer's Bailey's got nothing on Adam Wainwright at age 20, not a thing. He'll also do very well to be where Wainwright is right now after four more seasons, still in possession of good stuff after major surgery and on the brink of the majors. Nobody wants to hear that. It's not the gumdrops and paper hearts scenario that makes fans swoon, but time is cruel. For every level where a player has succeeded, his value increases. Are there younger players who'll someday be better? Sure. But once you've made it in AA, you've reached a level a lot of those supposed next big things never could conquer. You've got fond hopes for some of the Reds' kids. So do I. So what. Fond hopes mean nothing.

SteelSD
02-10-2006, 12:35 AM
Carrillo has yet to show me anything that makes him any more valueable, or even as valueable a prospect that Homer Bailey is. He has good strikeout and walk numbers, but his performance in his 7 outtings in Lake Elsinore scare me (7 starts, 7.01 ERA). Kottaras is a catcher with NO power to speak of at all who hits for a decent average, but performed pretty poorly in the AFL. He may have a slightly better bat than Miguel Perez, but I cant comment on his defense, but that is where Miguel excels.

George Kottaras put up 11 HR and 36 Doubles last year in 513 PA. And he has no power with a capital "NO"??

The guy has demonstrated the ability to put up 100-point Isolated Discipline numbers (that's extreme) with solid pop from the Catcher position. No two ways about that. All Kottaras has to do is be able to play the Catcher position period and there's no possible way Miguel Perez can make up the Run value gap. None.

And you're probably the only person on the planet who'd use a couple rough outings by Cesar Carrillo after a LONG college season AND after he'd dominated AA hitters for five starts as a reason to degrade him.


Again, for the second time, just because someone is ready to make an impact right now, does not make them a better prospect than someone who wont be ready for another year or two or three. It just means they are ready now.

A quality player who's more advanced is worth geometrically more than a quality player who is less advanced. Period. Exclamation point.


m2, I dont appreciate the language being used toward me.

Then you'd best begin policing yourself:


Just a simple arguement on my behalf to the idiotic comment of "every team has the same players because every teamhas a draft each year".

See, I can let a comment like that slide the first time around because it means nothing to me. Unfortunately, it was only a matter of time before you slipped into your comfort zone of attempting to play the victim. Bad choice.

Patrick Bateman
02-10-2006, 12:51 AM
I think what doug fails to realize is that when a player is close to the majors it is much easier to project how successful they will be in the majors. For a guy like Bailey, he still needs to continue his development for 3-4 more years which is not a guaranteed scenario. In fact, based on past examples there is a very good chance that Bailey does not develop up to his full potential.

For a guy like reyes, he has already gone through more years of successful development. If Bailey continues progressing, he will be a similar prospect to what reyes is now.

But, since he hasn't Reyes has a much greater chance of contributing in the majors. Assuming 2 players have the same ceiling, the player that is most ready for the majors will always be the better prospect (note: I am notsaying Homer and Reyes have the same ceiling).

dougdirt
02-10-2006, 12:52 AM
SteelSD, I apologize for the "idiotic" comment.

As for the rest of the conversation. I am just going to leave it with I disagree with things you have said and I am leaving it with that.

KoryMac5
02-10-2006, 10:05 AM
I feel like I'm watching the O'Reilly factor.

registerthis
02-10-2006, 12:43 PM
Not if that unrealized potential has a much higher ceiling and is showing signs of breaking out. Which I think is his point.

What signs can a rookie or A-ball player show of "breaking out"? After all, this discussion relates to players in the low-level minors, not major league rookies. Do you think Bailey is showing signs of "breaking out"? How about Wood? And what signs are those, exactly, that lead you to believe that an A-ball player will be successul in the majors?

IslandRed
02-10-2006, 05:36 PM
But, since he hasn't Reyes has a much greater chance of contributing in the majors. Assuming 2 players have the same ceiling, the player that is most ready for the majors will always be the better prospect (note: I am notsaying Homer and Reyes have the same ceiling).

One thing that always bothers me about "ceiling," with respect to how it's used to value prospects: it represents the best-case scenario.

How often does THAT happen?

Whenever a very young player's ceiling is invoked, I always want to know: (1) What needs to happen for him to reach it? (2) Is the high ceiling based on genuine known factors, or just that his faults haven't been discovered yet?

MikeS21
02-10-2006, 10:53 PM
If there is ever an indictment of just how bad the Reds' organizational talent level is, how about all these Reds players who are dropped from the roster, and pass through waivers without anyone picking them up? (ie. Nelson, Hudson, etc.) :yikes:

Team Clark
02-16-2006, 01:48 PM
Do you have a link to the rankings on Baseball America's site?

savafan
02-16-2006, 01:53 PM
Do you have a link to the rankings on Baseball America's site?

I don't have a link to it. I went to Kroger after getting off of work at 2AM one night, went to the magazine section, picked up Baseball America and copied down the Reds info on my little flip notebook and then reposted it here. Nobody bothers me when I go into Kroger at 2AM. :evil:

Team Clark
02-16-2006, 02:28 PM
I don't have a link to it. I went to Kroger after getting off of work at 2AM one night, went to the magazine section, picked up Baseball America and copied down the Reds info on my little flip notebook and then reposted it here. Nobody bothers me when I go into Kroger at 2AM. :evil:

LOL! Love it. I'll look for it today. Thanks for the heads up.