PDA

View Full Version : 2004 Draft thread



Pages : 1 2 [3]

M2
06-07-2004, 04:06 PM
and the A's lost to the Twins in the playoffs, that is all that matters.

I think both organizations are well-run (and I was one who wanted the Reds to hire Wayne Krivsky this offseason). That said, the main difference is the A's turned their ship around in the course of three years while it took the Twins seven to eight seasons to do it. As a fan, I much prefer the quicker turnaround.

BTW, going back to something that was discussed at the start of this thread, if the Reds had a deeper farm system, I'd be much more inclined to speculate with the #1 pick. Problem is the team specualted in 1999, 2001 and 2002.

gm
06-07-2004, 04:07 PM
either he was due, gm or he's trying out a reverse Costanza. I'm hoping for the latter

(A couple of other possibilities)

O'Brien and Bennett locked Reynolds in the closet

Aliens have taken over TR's body

He has more years remaining on his contract than O'Binder

Clemson
06-07-2004, 04:09 PM
MWM, I didn't mean to call you personally absurd, just as you weren't juding individual players talent as opposed to the philosophy of drafting them. I was juyst frustated by the fact that we cant judge a draft before we ever see the guys on a field. whether we get everyone we think we want or not, we won't know how we did untila few years down the road, when hopefully we'll all be here to celebrate on redsZone.

pessimism is totally fine, but on a thing such as the draft we can't judge until its well over a few years down the road

M2
06-07-2004, 04:11 PM
You know the Expos are moving when they allow a Quebec guy to slip through seven rounds.

Excellent point.

Another HS arm (again, one I like). IMO they ought to gobble up some college pitchers in the coming rounds just so they can field a team in Billings this season.

BTW, here's a guy I'm hoping the Reds draft - "3B Beau Mills, Fresno State's top recruit, is the son of former big leaguer Brad Mills, now a coach with the Red Sox. Mills has the requisite baseball savvy and a solid lefthanded bat, generating good bat speed. He showed off his raw power potential in 2003 by hitting three balls into McCovey Cove at then-Pac Bell Park in San Francisco, when his father's Expos came through on a road trip "

MWM
06-07-2004, 04:12 PM
Honestly you can't say the A's are that much better a franchise than the Twins right now.
That's a different argument altogether that I don't want to get into on this thread, but I disagree strongly with that. The A's have lost a lot more than the Twins over the years, yet they've continued to win their division. And they have more in htepipeline than do the Twins.

The Twins have been to the playoffs twice, both times benefitting from playing in a very poor division. In 2002, they were the only team over .500 in their division. In 2003, there were 3 teams over .500, but they were the only team more than 10 games over .500.

The Twins would not have made the playoffs either year playing the AL West. In both years, they would have been in third place (and only one game out of 4th in 2002).

Cedric
06-07-2004, 04:15 PM
My question is are you guys all actually A's fans? Do you root for them? Just wondering.

Raisor
06-07-2004, 04:17 PM
Here are some more HS vs college pitcher facts:

David Schoenfield reported, among other things, the following:


From 1985 through 1997, 93 pitchers from four-year colleges were drafted in the first round, and 72 of them (77.4 percent) have reached the majors.


From 1985 through 1997, 61 pitchers from high schools were drafted in the first round, and 35 of them (57.3 percent) have reached the majors.


The college pitchers who have reached the majors have thrown more innings with a lower ERA than the high-school pitchers who have reached the majors.


Over that same 13-year span, only one high-school first-rounder (Kerry Wood) has a career ERA under 4.00; 16 college first-rounders do.

gm
06-07-2004, 04:17 PM
BTW, here's a guy I'm hoping the Reds draft - "3B Beau Mills, Fresno State's top recruit, is the son of former big leaguer Brad Mills, now a coach with the Red Sox. Mills has the requisite baseball savvy and a solid lefthanded bat, generating good bat speed. He showed off his raw power potential in 2003 by hitting three balls into McCovey Cove at then-Pac Bell Park in San Francisco, when his father's Expos came through on a road trip "

LHH 3rd baseman? Nice. With the Red's IF luck, he'd probably project as a 1bman. Got any info on his defensive abilities? Hopefully he'd become "Willie Green with a clue"

MWM
06-07-2004, 04:17 PM
Nope. I don't root for the A's at all. I tend to be anti-West Coast (except for the Padres). I'll admit, I somewhat wanted to see the A's win at least a post-season series over the last couple of years, so ridiculous comments about how his approach doesn't work would stop. But I have no love for the A's, other than that.

weasel
06-07-2004, 04:18 PM
Is Andrew Brackman still on the board?

MWM
06-07-2004, 04:19 PM
Here are some more HS vs college pitcher facts:

David Schoenfield reported, among other things, the following:


From 1985 through 1997, 93 pitchers from four-year colleges were drafted in the first round, and 72 of them (77.4 percent) have reached the majors.


From 1985 through 1997, 61 pitchers from high schools were drafted in the first round, and 35 of them (57.3 percent) have reached the majors.


The college pitchers who have reached the majors have thrown more innings with a lower ERA than the high-school pitchers who have reached the majors.


Over that same 13-year span, only one high-school first-rounder (Kerry Wood) has a career ERA under 4.00; 16 college first-rounders do.
Tough to argue with these facts.

Cedric
06-07-2004, 04:19 PM
I could understand you wanting them too win.

traderumor
06-07-2004, 04:19 PM
TR,

I don't think we really disagree all that much. No one has ever even attempted to say that there is little risk in drafting college pitchers. I know I've never even thought that. That's an argument that's gets projected onto those of us who prefer less risky choices.

At least you recognize that what the Reds have done is take a very high risk gamble when lower risk gambles were available for the taking. If you, or anyone else, recognize that and are fine with that, then we just agree to disagree. But at least we both understand things the same way.

But let's at least agree that the Reds had the choice to make a pick with much less risk associated with it and chose the much riskier route. In some instances I wouldn't argue quite as much, such as if this player is said to be a special talent. You know, the types that don't come along very often. By all accounts, Bailey is not that guy. His mechanics and stuff were compared to Wood and Beckett in the blurb you mentioned above, but the author wasn't exactly comparing their potentials. When wood and Beckett were coming out of the draft, it was very widely published just about everywhere you looked that these guys were rare talents. Bailey hasn't been mentioned in that light. The best that's been said about the guy is that he's the best HS arm available *in this draft*, which has been called a pretty weak draft as far as HS piching.

Now, it's time to root like hell for the guy to develop into a perrenial Cy Young Candidate and 20 game winner. :GAC:

Yes, I do understand where folks are coming from and the risk averseness, but at the same time, using the stock portfolio analogy, and letting this regime have a fresh start as they try to rebuild our minor league system as the portfolio, the Bailey pick is the relatively cheap longshot that could pay off handsomely. For example, there are many folks who bought IBM stock when it was building computers that took up the whole floors of buildings and the stock was relatively cheap. Those folks and other were probably wondering what in the hell they were doing. Then, they bought a nice second home in the Hamptons with that risky investment. Now, you pay a small fortune to own 100 shares of that stock. You say it is a huge signing bonus, but that bonus is like buying IBM stock when its cheap or waiting until its a blue chip stock, ala buying a #1 pitcher when they are in the development stage or being out of the market for them when they are bona fide blue chippers. You may have a number of development money just go down the toilet, but when one hits, it will pay off for all the failures. To me, the bonus is a small investment in our entire stock portfolio with the potential for a huge payoff. Plus, if you know with the 7th pick of the draft you are going to pay $X in signing bonus, it would seem to make some sense to parlay that money where the highest potential reward is. In other words, if the signing bonus is $2M, do you take the safe bet that will make you $1M or do you take a chance on losing the $2M but possibly making $10M on that money? It all comes back to what they're hoping to have in Mr. Bailey. I think they are hoping they just drafted their 2009-2012 #1 stud in the rotation. BTW, I am really trying not to take sides, because both sides have merit. Some folks are risk adverse and don't like to ever see money spent on a risky venture. But then we can hope that with this pick, the powers that be, surely fully aware of the risk, found reasons that the risk is mitigated in this instance.

M2, I guess I would ask you to tell us why Bailey is not any different than Chris Gruler? Do you have a crystal ball that tells us who will certainly get injured? Is it just the probability angle, and if so, then it just comes down to a risk/reward argument.

Carter
06-07-2004, 04:19 PM
M2, at the ML level wouldn't you see Mills as a Todd Walker type hitter ?

M2
06-07-2004, 04:21 PM
My question is are you guys all actually A's fans? Do you root for them? Just wondering.

Actually I hate the A's. 1972 was my formative baseball experience and the failure of 1990 A's players to give the Reds their due after being trounced in the series still ticks me off (likewise I'm surprised Chris Sabo still isn't waiting in that concourse for Dave Stewart to show up and talk trash to his face).

Yet, despite the fact that I can't stand the A's and that I root against them daily, I can give credit where it's due. Beane's put some sound theories to work and it's paid dividends. What he's doing is hardly revolutionary. He's simply taken some freely available information and put it to use.

IslandRed
06-07-2004, 04:21 PM
Not an A's fan at all. But as a Reds fan, I am unfortunately a fan of one of the lower-payroll teams in the game, one that needs to get good bang for the buck if we're going to compete for anything that matters. So why would I not pay very close attention to the team that is, and has been, getting the best bang for the buck in the game?

Raisor
06-07-2004, 04:21 PM
http://www.cincypost.com/2003/06/04/redsdraft06-04-2003.html


The thought process behind drafting college rather than high school pitchers is generally twofold: College pitchers' bodies don't tend to break down as often under the strain of a professional schedule, and because of their physical and mental maturity, they often make a faster climb through the minor leagues than their younger counterparts.

Last year's top pick, Chris Gruler, is on the shelf for the next year or so after undergoing shoulder surgery and the rest of the Reds' frontline pitching prospects -- all high school selections -- are still working their way through the Class AA level after a few years in the system. With that in mind, finding players who can move up to Cincinnati quickly has taken on added importance for the Reds.

MasonBuzz3
06-07-2004, 04:21 PM
Is Andrew Brackman still on the board?
yes, his commitment to NC State may be causing him to drop a bit

westofyou
06-07-2004, 04:22 PM
My question is are you guys all actually A's fans? Do you root for them? Just wondering.

I've hated the A's since Campy heaved that bat at my Tigers in 1972, I had to live there through Billyball, the emergence of the Bash Brothers, the earthquake, to Billy's arrival and those annoying drummers.

But that's just me..... I did like the ability to go AL games whilst I lived there, but not enough to ever like the A's.

Cedric
06-07-2004, 04:23 PM
I really wasn't asking that question in a sarcastic way, just wondering.

RedLegsToday
06-07-2004, 04:24 PM
missed the Reds 8th pick...

9th round Trevor Lawhorne, 2B East Carolina

Raisor
06-07-2004, 04:24 PM
My question is are you guys all actually A's fans? Do you root for them? Just wondering.


Being a Mariner fan, I DESPISE the f'n A's.

NC Reds
06-07-2004, 04:25 PM
I like Lawhorn. Go ECU Pirates.

Cedric
06-07-2004, 04:25 PM
Bad year for you then :)

gm
06-07-2004, 04:26 PM
Nope. I don't root for the A's at all. I tend to be anti-West Coast (except for the Padres). I'll admit, I somewhat wanted to see the A's win at least a post-season series over the last couple of years, so ridiculous comments about how his approach doesn't work would stop. But I have no love for the A's, other than that.

Problem is, Oakland lost to the Red Sox last year due to some really boneheaded baserunning decisions, and afterwards Beane was quoted saying he "wasn't going to lose sleep over it"

The A's regular season success can be attributed to having Mulder, Zito and Hudson in their rotation for the past 4 years. Their post-season failures could be due to a lack of attention to executing the fundamentals that win baseball games when the pressure is "on"

RedLegsToday
06-07-2004, 04:27 PM
11 Trevor Lawhorn... .303 59-57 244 49 74 16 0 21 66 153 .627 21 7 53 4 .370 4 0 12-13 124 145 12 .957.

Sorry, there's no way I'm formatting that. :D

same number of homeruns (21) as walks. interesting pick, though, it looks like he needs some work on his D

MWM
06-07-2004, 04:28 PM
Not a bad analogy tr, but my response would be that for every IBM, there are probably 20 complete busts. And it's not good investment strategy to be constantly looking for the next IBM. If you have several steady performing stocks in your portfolio, it's OK to go looking for the next Microsoft, but you better be careful you don't go broke over 10 years because of the lack of consistent stocks in your portfolio. You don't want to be 70 years old with no retirement, working at Wal-Mart as a greeter.

I know you see both sides and you're just arguing the other side. Maybe I take for granted that it's not as clear-cut as I think it is. Because I think it is very clear, while others don't.

MWM
06-07-2004, 04:32 PM
Problem is, Oakland lost to the Red Sox last year due to some really boneheaded baserunning decisions, and afterwards Beane was quoted saying he "wasn't going to lose sleep over it"

The A's regular season success can be attributed to having Mulder, Zito and Hudson in their rotation for the past 4 years. Their post-season failures could be due to a lack of attention to executing the fundamentals that win baseball games when the pressure is "on"

Not that I want to get into that discussion again, but for the record, I don't think that's why they lost at all.

RedLegsToday
06-07-2004, 04:33 PM
has Sean Gamble been drafted yet?

RedLegsToday
06-07-2004, 04:35 PM
10th round: Terrell Young, HS pitcher out of Miss.

traderumor
06-07-2004, 04:35 PM
Not a bad analogy tr, but my response would be that for every IBM, there are probably 20 complete busts. And it's not good investment strategy to be constantly looking for the next IBM. If you have several steady performing stocks in your portfolio, it's OK to go looking for the next Microsoft, but you better be careful you don't go broke over 10 years because of the lack of consistent stocks in your portfolio. You don't want to be 70 years old with no retirement, working at Wal-Mart as a greeter.

I know you see both sides and you're just arguing the other side. Maybe I take for granted that it's not as clear-cut as I think it is. Because I think it is very clear, while others don't.

Yes, the ole don't put your eggs in one basket axiom. Which I believe I mentioned that in another post, that the later picks should be lower risk to balance out the risky one at #1. Then I see us pick up that kid from NYC i the fourth round I think and have to think they are must have gotten together a list of BPAs, ranked them as to round, and then picked them if they were there. Honestly, I don't know anything about any of these kids, so they could pick Homer Simpson and I wouldn't know if talent wise that was a good pick or not.

ochre
06-07-2004, 04:36 PM
has Sean Gamble been drafted yet?
yes

21 (182) Sean Gamble Philadelphia Phillies OF Auburn

Aronchis
06-07-2004, 04:38 PM
O'brien must be obsessed with power hitters.

RedLegsToday
06-07-2004, 04:38 PM
thanks!

Raisor
06-07-2004, 04:40 PM
10th round: Terrell Young, HS pitcher out of Miss.


I've lost track, how many HS pitchers is that?

RedLegsToday
06-07-2004, 04:40 PM
O'brien must be obsessed with power hitters.

Not that there is anything wrong with that...

gm
06-07-2004, 04:40 PM
Not that I want to get into that discussion again, but for the record, I don't think that's why they lost at all.

And you believe the reason Oakland lost to the Yankees (in a previous series) wasn't because Je. Giambi failed to slide into home? Disturbing trends, IMO

M2
06-07-2004, 04:47 PM
M2, at the ML level wouldn't you see Mills as a Todd Walker type hitter ?

Possibly, sounds like he's got more power, though. Mind you, any later round pick that winds up playing in the majors for a decade is a good one.

gm, don't know about his defense, but coaches' sons tend to put a lot of work in on that end.



M2, I guess I would ask you to tell us why Bailey is not any different than Chris Gruler? Do you have a crystal ball that tells us who will certainly get injured? Is it just the probability angle, and if so, then it just comes down to a risk/reward argument.

Throws mid '90s with a hammer curve and a polished delivery, played against suspect competition in HS. Same height. Pretty eerie thumbnail similarities when you get right down to it.

Why do I need a crystal ball if I know HS pitchers are far more likely to suffer injuries and fall short of their ceilings? It really isn't a risk/reward argument so much as a statement of fact. IMO the Reds just passed on a group of stable investments for a lottery ticket which offers no higher payout. Time will tell, but I'm not the one defending the high risk option, I'm simply calling it for what it is.

Red Leader
06-07-2004, 04:47 PM
Can anyone recap the first 10 rounds of the draft for the Reds so far. I lost track around round 5.

Red Leader
06-07-2004, 04:49 PM
8th round selection was LHP Greg Goetz from Newport. 6'2" 175lbs.

Johnny Footstool
06-07-2004, 04:50 PM
My question is are you guys all actually A's fans? Do you root for them? Just wondering.

I'm a fan of their organization because they favor creativity and "out of the box" perspectives. Instead of dealing with their problems in a conventional manner, they found creative solutions. Whether you agree with it or not, you have to admit that the "Moneyball" era has changed the way people look at the game.

WVRed
06-07-2004, 04:52 PM
Can anyone recap the first 10 rounds of the draft for the Reds so far. I lost track around round 5.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24198

Red Leader
06-07-2004, 04:55 PM
Thanks, WVRed. I just went out to the main board for the first time all day. I've been in this thread all day (well, since 1pm.)

MasonBuzz3
06-07-2004, 04:57 PM
Jason Urquidez RHP from Arizona State in the 11th round

M2
06-07-2004, 04:59 PM
HS pitchers (last pick excepted) and college players. Though I don't mind some of the particulars (Szymanski, Gonzalez, Valiquette), I'm not thrilled with the general philosophy ... and we're getting deep enough in the draft to start calling it a philosophy.

Aronchis
06-07-2004, 05:03 PM
Moneyball is about playing it safe and increasing percentages for finding "good" players. Which cuts down the bust rate on the "old school" style of boom-bust. The weakness of Moneyball is that you won't most likely be able to field a bunch of "Superstars" who have the ability to transcend the game. No Becketts,Woods,Dunns,Sosa's,McGwire's,Schillings,R J's. Just "good" players.

Sort of like Marxism vs. Fascism. Marxism with its scientific universialism vs. the Fascist supermen.

traderumor
06-07-2004, 05:03 PM
Throws mid '90s with a hammer curve and a polished delivery, played against suspect competition in HS. Same height. Pretty eerie thumbnail similarities when you get right down to it.

Why do I need a crystal ball if I know HS pitchers are far more likely to suffer injuries and fall short of their ceilings

I'm not sure why you can't see that you are making just as dire predictions about an individual's player's failure as if probability is predictive in an individual event, when only a 100% probability does that, which is the same crystal ball that you claimed the Reds draft brass would need to be right about the first round draft pick they just made. So, yes, that is a risk/reward argument with respect to this one draft pick, not a statement of fact. Who can argue that in the overall population of pitchers taken that the odd of eventual success/failure is against the HS pitcher? I agree that the numbers bear that out, but that is a macro argument. In the micro world of the Reds, the pick may have more chance of turning out well than it would in the general population of all draft picks made in umpteen years of the draft. Again, who doesn't want to buy IBM stock when it is cheap? But then, there is the chance that it could be a flash techy stock that flops. The more I think about it, the more I think there's a time and a place to take that chance, esp. considering that we are in search of the holy grail of developing quality starting pitching from within the organization because that is the only way we can afford to have them. When the other option is overpaying for proven, veteran, pricey talent which we cannot now afford, the risk may be worth taking. The strategy is not entirely meritless.

NC Reds
06-07-2004, 05:05 PM
From ASU website:

Urquidez (Simi Valley, Calif.) is tied for the Pac-10 lead with 11 wins and is second with a 3.31 ERA heading into regional play. The junior right-hander has struck out 90 in 92.1 innings and ranks fourth in the league with a .249 opponents batting average. The transfer from Central Arizona College was named the Clemens Award watch list after he was named Pac-10 and National Player of the Week with his complete-game, three-hit victory over No. 1 Rice on the road (2/22).

Bill
06-07-2004, 05:08 PM
Nelson never stood a chance of the Reds drafting him.

Since they are going with HS pitchers, go get Brackman. 6-10 Ohio pitcher with his stuff is worth any risk of not signing this late (if still on board.)

Boss-Hog
06-07-2004, 05:08 PM
Moneyball is about playing it safe and increasing percentages for finding "good" players. Which cuts down the bust rate on the "old school" style of boom-bust. The weakness of Moneyball is that you won't most likely be able to field a bunch of "Superstars" who have the ability to transcend the game. No Becketts,Woods,Dunns,Sosa's,McGwire's,Schillings,R J's. Just "good" players.

Sort of like Marxism vs. Fascism. Marxism with its scientific universialism vs. the Fascist supermen.
Jason Giambi (2000 MVP), Barry Zito (2002 Cy Young winner) and Miguel Tejada (2002 MVP) say hello.

Steve4192
06-07-2004, 05:10 PM
The weakness of Moneyball is that you won't most likely be able to field a bunch of "Superstars" who have the ability to transcend the game. No Becketts,Woods,Dunns,Sosa's,McGwire's,Schillings,R J's. Just "good" players.
Just 'good' players like Mulder, Zito, & Hudson?

I could live with that.

NC Reds
06-07-2004, 05:10 PM
From BA website:

4:39 PM ET: Reds Take A Chance On Young
The Reds rolled the dice on the best prep arm in Mississippi, righthander Terrell Young. Despite a fastball that sits in the low 90s and a power slider, Young didn't go higher than the ninth round due to makeup questions. He was enrolled in special education classes and has a three-year-old child, and scouts question his maturity.


Sounds like he would have went higher but for his character problems.

MasonBuzz3
06-07-2004, 05:25 PM
Cody Strait RF Evansville University in the 12th

traderumor
06-07-2004, 05:28 PM
Just 'good' players like Mulder, Zito, & Hudson?

I could live with that.
I don't consider this to sanction a certain methodology any more than I would consider Leo Mazzone to be the best pitching coach around (and I don't) by hanging his hat on the success of Glavine, Maddux, and Smoltz. Mazzone's real test of his abilities comes from their replacements, which thus far have been found wanting (and traded to the Reds :mhcky21: ). The true test of the system will be in the A's trio's replacements when they are no longer affordable. So far, we have one of their rejects in our fold in Harang and Harden is having mixed results but is in the rotation. But Mulder, Zito, and Hudson could be no more than an anomaly just like the Braves happening on Glavine, Maddux, and Smoltz in the late 80s rather than products of a system that continues to work even though the names change.

MasonBuzz3
06-07-2004, 05:32 PM
13th Round
Drew Anderson MI from Ohio State
teamonebaseball: Anderson was an impact freshman for Ohio State in 2002. He played 3B but was moved to 2B for the 2003 season. Has outstanding speed and very good baseball instincts.
14th round
JARED SANDERS OREGON ST U RHP R/R 6'2" 210 1981-11-19 4YR
COMMENT: TALL FRAME. SUPPLE, ATHLETIC BUILD. GOOD OVERALL STRENGTH. SLIGHTLY HIGH WAISTED. WELL DEVELOPED UPPER BODY. THICK THROUGH ROUNDED SHOULDERS. TRIM AT WAIST. BUILT LKE RUSS ORTIZ. NO WIND UP, 3/4, ACROSS BODY DELIVERY. DECEPTIVE SHOULDER TUCK, TURN. LOOSE, EASY ARM. HIDES BALL WELL THROUGH PIVOT. MAINTAINS MAJOR LEAGUE FB W/TAIL LIFE ON SHORT RELIEF STINT. WILL RUN BALL UP & IN TO RHH. TALL, DOWN 3/4 SLURVE FOR CB. INFREQUENT CIRCLE CHANGE UP OCCAISIONALLY SINKS. WELL BUILT RHP W/QUALITY ARM. UNDERVALUED STOCK. WILL BE BETTER IN PRO ENVIRONMENT.

NC Reds
06-07-2004, 05:36 PM
Sanders has some ugly numbers. Don't know what to make of that. Anderson looks like he is 12.

http://ohiostatebuckeyes.collegesports.com/sports/m-basebl/mtt/anderson_drew00.html

Bill
06-07-2004, 05:37 PM
Between Young and Gonzalez, I would think it safe to say maturity is not what they are looking for. Potential is the bottom line today when it comes to pitching.

How long does OB have to turn the system around?

traderumor
06-07-2004, 05:40 PM
Sanders has some ugly numbers. Don't know what to make of that. Anderson looks like he is 12.

http://ohiostatebuckeyes.collegesports.com/sports/m-basebl/mtt/anderson_drew00.html

Anderson's hair. Classic. I hope someone told him that hair gel works better with short hair :lol:

jmcclain19
06-07-2004, 05:41 PM
Anyone else feel mildly creeped out by some of the scouting reports?

I hear things like Supple, athletic build. Thick in the lower 1/2. Long legs. Strong forearms.

And I am frightened that the next description will be creamy skin, high cheekbones, firm breasts. Sounds like a model convention. So yeah, I'm weirded out just a tad by that.

KronoRed
06-07-2004, 05:45 PM
Anyone else feel mildly creeped out by some of the scouting reports?

I hear things like Supple, athletic build. Thick in the lower 1/2. Long legs. Strong forearms.

And I am frightened that the next description will be creamy skin, high cheekbones, firm breasts. Sounds like a model convention. So yeah, I'm weirded out just a tad by that.

Scouts are a strange group ;)

MasonBuzz3
06-07-2004, 05:47 PM
15th Round
J.D. Reininger 3B Texas
http://www.texassports.com/mainpages/ba_pages/2003_04/bios/reininger.html

westofyou
06-07-2004, 05:51 PM
Scouts are a strange group ;)

Dierker said that when he ate dinner with scouts they would remark on his "healthy" appetite.

An 18 year old guy who likes to eat... who woulda thunk it?

MasonBuzz3
06-07-2004, 06:05 PM
16th round
Travis Kaats OF Grand Canyon University

MasonBuzz3
06-07-2004, 06:13 PM
17th Round
Milton Loo SS Hawaii HS

Red Leader
06-07-2004, 06:17 PM
16th round
Travis Kaats OF Grand Canyon University

Nevermind.

Kaats: .360 avg, 189AB, 53R, 68H, 21 2B, 2 3B, 9 HR, 47 RBI, 23 BB, 39K, 13 HBP, 13 SB, 1 CS.

2 errors in 140 total chances in the field.

NC Reds
06-07-2004, 06:20 PM
http://www.grand-canyon.edu/Athletics/honors/baseballallccaateam04.htm

Travis Kaats at this site.

CougarQuest
06-07-2004, 06:22 PM
I've got to wonder, with the new Reds pitching philosophy in the lower minor levels, if they actually WANT high school pitchers instead of college pitchers.

Personally, I've always been a fan of drafting college pitchers (there's really no reason to add why, since all the reasons have been stated in here). But I can see why the Reds may not want to follow that philosphy currently.

The Reds philosophy now is to only allow their pitchers to pitch a set number of pitches, regardless of how well the game is going for them. The reason: to protect the pitchers health.

Now, if they draft a college player, they would want to make sure that the college coaches haven't pitched them over the Reds current limits. Which is probably unlikely.

It may not be the course that I currently like, but if that is their reasoning, and they are so 'sold' on this new philosophy, then I like the thinking outside of the box.

M2
06-07-2004, 06:23 PM
I'm not sure why you can't see that you are making just as dire predictions about an individual's player's failure as if probability is predictive in an individual event, when only a 100% probability does that, which is the same crystal ball that you claimed the Reds draft brass would need to be right about the first round draft pick they just made. So, yes, that is a risk/reward argument with respect to this one draft pick, not a statement of fact. Who can argue that in the overall population of pitchers taken that the odd of eventual success/failure is against the HS pitcher? I agree that the numbers bear that out, but that is a macro argument. In the micro world of the Reds, the pick may have more chance of turning out well than it would in the general population of all draft picks made in umpteen years of the draft. Again, who doesn't want to buy IBM stock when it is cheap? But then, there is the chance that it could be a flash techy stock that flops. The more I think about it, the more I think there's a time and a place to take that chance, esp. considering that we are in search of the holy grail of developing quality starting pitching from within the organization because that is the only way we can afford to have them. When the other option is overpaying for proven, veteran, pricey talent which we cannot now afford, the risk may be worth taking. The strategy is not entirely meritless.

First I've made no predictions on Bailey dire or otherwise. I understand that macro numbers are trends and not oracles. Yet the Reds are particularly a team that can't afford failures at this time and I've yet to see anything about Bailey which indicates he's worth this kind of risk. In other words, no one's presenting any micro evidence other than he's a HS pitcher with talent. I know that. Thing is, talent's not hard to find. Guys that can survive the minor league gauntlet and pitch in the majors are. When it comes to that, I'm going to consult the odds.

This is a rewind of the discussions this board had about Gruler two years ago. He was going to kick butt and rise fast we were told. That smooth delivery meant he wasn't going to get injured like those other HS pitchers with their bad mechanics we were told.

That's my breakdown here. You can't promise me anything. You can't even give me good odds. I'm a guy who's worried about the sorry state of the Reds' farm system. I want to see improvement and what they picked was a kid who, if he stays on track, will make it to AA to start the 2007 season.

It's a policy that's failed the Reds of late. They've had a world to trouble keeping pitchers, particularly HS arms, healthy and they're back at it. To me Bailey's a bad fit for a this organization and a terribly unfortunate selection given some of the talent that was still on the board.

ochre
06-07-2004, 06:25 PM
I've got to wonder, with the new Reds pitching philosophy in the lower minor levels, if they actually WANT high school pitchers instead of college pitchers.

Personally, I've always been a fan of drafting college pitchers (there's really no reason to add why, since all the reasons have been stated in here). But I can see why the Reds may not want to follow that philosphy currently.

The Reds philosophy now is to only allow their pitchers to pitch a set number of pitches, regardless of how well the game is going for them. The reason: to protect the pitchers health.

Now, if they draft a college player, they would want to make sure that the college coaches haven't pitched them over the Reds current limits. Which is probably unlikely.

It may not be the course that I currently like, but if that is their reasoning, and they are so 'sold' on this new philosophy, then I like the thinking outside of the box.


I think you are likely right CQ. And to expand on that, what if they did a moneyball type analysis and determined that this was the overlooked segment/where the value was in the current market? The method the A's took isn't really what moneyball was about in my mind. It was about breaking the mold and finding success under the rocks nobody else turned over.

NC Reds
06-07-2004, 06:26 PM
That HS shortstop was Milton Loo from Molokai.

MasonBuzz3
06-07-2004, 06:27 PM
18th Round
Charles O'Neil LHP CHIPOLA JC in Georgia
and that pick ends the Reds first day of the draft

westofyou
06-07-2004, 06:29 PM
That HS shortstop was Milton Loo from Molokai.

Gotta wonder about the level of play on an island known more for Father Damian than sports.

PuffyPig
06-07-2004, 06:30 PM
Why is picking a college guy (with presumably less upside) in the long run less risky than a higher ceiling HS pitcher? And why does the "sorry state" of our farm system factor into that descision?

regardless of the state of the farm system, you want to draft the guy who's got a high upside with less risk. If the experts think that's a HS guy, I'm fine with that.

A number #7 pick must be utilized on a very high ceiling guy, and if the Reds scouts felt that none of the college pitchers projected to #1 pitchers, I'd say that Homer was a decent descision.

MWM
06-07-2004, 06:34 PM
Who said Bailey had a significantly higher ceiling than other options available?

Cedric
06-07-2004, 06:35 PM
Well it's pretty obvious the Reds think that.

NC Reds
06-07-2004, 06:38 PM
http://www.chipola.edu/extrac/athl/baseball/2003/charles2003.htm

I doubt the listed weight is correct for O'Neal.

jmcclain19
06-07-2004, 06:41 PM
Not that I'm a HS pitching advocate in anyway - but for example - Humber threw 12 innings this weekend.

Niemann was in for 2IP in relief before starting on Sunday.

I saw a feature this weekend on the Florida St where he said essentially that the kids would have to 'tough it out' about pitching a lot of innings during the CWS because the team was not deep in the bullpen.

That's not representative in anyway of College baseball as a whole, just an interesting side note.

MasonBuzz3
06-07-2004, 06:41 PM
http://www.chipola.edu/extrac/athl/baseball/2003/charles2003.htm

I doubt the listed weight is correct for O'Neal.
mlb.com only has him at 165

jmcclain19
06-07-2004, 06:42 PM
Over 6 ft and 165lb?

Get that kid a steak

PuffyPig
06-07-2004, 06:42 PM
Who said Bailey had a significantly higher ceiling than other options available?

Some of the college starters (Townsend in particular) were projected as relief pitchers in the majors.

A reliever can never project as high as a #1 starter.

M2
06-07-2004, 06:54 PM
Why is picking a college guy (with presumably less upside) in the long run less risky than a higher ceiling HS pitcher? And why does the "sorry state" of our farm system factor into that descision?

regardless of the state of the farm system, you want to draft the guy who's got a high upside with less risk. If the experts think that's a HS guy, I'm fine with that.

A number #7 pick must be utilized on a very high ceiling guy, and if the Reds scouts felt that none of the college pitchers projected to #1 pitchers, I'd say that Homer was a decent descision.

First off I categorically reject the notion that Townshend or Diamond have less upside. Try equivalent upside. For instance BA also noted that Townshend "has the stuff to pitch in the front of a big league rotation."

Second, obviously that's the way the Reds' scouting folks felt about this pick, much the same way they felt about Ty Howington and Chris Gruler. What's the track record here? Know it. Learn from it. Or repeat it endlessly expecting different results.

Rocky - But that trick never works.
Bullwinkle - This time for sure.
(Lion's head pops out of hat)
Bullwinkle - Must've grabbed the wrong hat.

Third, the sorry state of the farm system means the organization could stand a little self-awareness. When you can't throw money at problems it helps to have a lot of talent in the high minors to replenish your team and to trade in contention years. The Reds picked a guy who may not provide them with either option for years to come. That's not Bailey's fault, it's just that he's an 18-year-old pitcher and they really ought to come with buyer beware tags.

Aronchis
06-07-2004, 07:15 PM
The high school pitching selections don't surprise me. In many ways, they were predicted on the Danogram, er planogram which the regime was hinting at. But the amount of college bats were surprising.

SirFelixCat
06-07-2004, 08:41 PM
I've got to wonder, with the new Reds pitching philosophy in the lower minor levels, if they actually WANT high school pitchers instead of college pitchers.

Personally, I've always been a fan of drafting college pitchers (there's really no reason to add why, since all the reasons have been stated in here). But I can see why the Reds may not want to follow that philosphy currently.

The Reds philosophy now is to only allow their pitchers to pitch a set number of pitches, regardless of how well the game is going for them. The reason: to protect the pitchers health.

Now, if they draft a college player, they would want to make sure that the college coaches haven't pitched them over the Reds current limits. Which is probably unlikely.

It may not be the course that I currently like, but if that is their reasoning, and they are so 'sold' on this new philosophy, then I like the thinking outside of the box.

Sure, we have no idea if they did anything like this, but the key is that we don't know. Who's to say they don't know more about this than we think? Great way of looking at it, CQ. :thumbup:

And, FWIW, I think it's been a solid draft thus far. We'll see in 2007 :GAC:

MWM
06-07-2004, 08:47 PM
I'd be surprised if three years from now, people here on RedsZone who weren't around for this draft or who didn't pay much attention will be shaking their heads asking this question, "You mean we could have had Chris Nelson and we ended up taking homer Bailey?" Wow!

MWM
06-07-2004, 08:49 PM
Why is picking a college guy (with presumably less upside) in the long run less risky than a higher ceiling HS pitcher? And why does the "sorry state" of our farm system factor into that descision?

woy posted this on another thread, but I thought it was pertinent to this question.

""When we took over, we needed to restock the organization quickly and do it with college players...People forget I am a scout, first and foremost. I look forward to the day when we've come far enough as an organization that we draft a high school player in the first round."
--J.P. Ricciardi, Blue Jays general manager (ESPN.com)

PuffyPig
06-07-2004, 09:11 PM
I'd be surprised if three years from now, people here on RedsZone who weren't around for this draft or who didn't pay much attention will be shaking their heads asking this question, "You mean we could have had Chris Nelson and we ended up taking homer Bailey?" Wow!

You might be right.

But, then again, the experts (whoever they are) had Bailey pegged higher than Nelson.

It's not like the Reds passed over a player due to money.

WVRed
06-07-2004, 09:35 PM
I'd be surprised if three years from now, people here on RedsZone who weren't around for this draft or who didn't pay much attention will be shaking their heads asking this question, "You mean we could have had Chris Nelson and we ended up taking homer Bailey?" Wow!

Ive been watching video clips over Bailey, and the more I see his delivery, the more I see Roy Oswalt. His delivery doesnt seem near as violent though as what I had imagined(which could be a good sign).

On a side comment, I think the DRays are going to be the Detroit Lions of baseball(improving quickly). Niemann is a beast, 6'9 with a Barry Zitolike curveball and probably more gas than Zito. Add that to Crawford, Baldelli, Delmon Young, and BJ Upton, and yikes.

Oxilon
06-07-2004, 09:52 PM
Ive been watching video clips over Bailey, and the more I see his delivery, the more I see Roy Oswalt. His delivery doesnt seem near as violent though as what I had imagined(which could be a good sign).

On a side comment, I think the DRays are going to be the Detroit Lions of baseball(improving quickly). Niemann is a beast, 6'9 with a Barry Zitolike curveball and probably more gas than Zito. Add that to Crawford, Baldelli, Delmon Young, and BJ Upton, and yikes.

The D-Rays certainly have pieces (players/prospects mentioned above), but with their terrible fan base and $30M payroll, they'll never get any serious contender going.

By the time Delmon Young and Niemann can make an impact, Baldelli and Crawford will probably be gone. And I don't see B.J. Upton staying there is entire career.

D-Rays are just screwed. Period. They're probably the only team I don't see a glimmer of hope for.

lollipopcurve
06-07-2004, 10:27 PM
I like this draft because there appear to be lots of interesting stories, and I am more a fan of tools than of performance when it comes to young players. The strident opposition of M2 and MWM is based on sound reasoning and factual evidence. Hard to dispute the actuarial tables. But that stuff is no fun. Really looking forward to the start of the Billings and GCL Reds seasons -- love those 6 minor league box scores. And a Reds pitcher named Homer -- perfect.

traderumor
06-07-2004, 10:43 PM
I'd be surprised if three years from now, people here on RedsZone who weren't around for this draft or who didn't pay much attention will be shaking their heads asking this question, "You mean we could have had Chris Nelson and we ended up taking homer Bailey?" Wow!

But what I find interesting about that mindset is that Nelson is considered a sure thing, I guess since we didn't draft him, while the guy we pick is doomed to failure. Guess its just the nature of a fan. :confused:

WVRed
06-07-2004, 10:45 PM
The D-Rays certainly have pieces (players/prospects mentioned above), but with their terrible fan base and $30M payroll, they'll never get any serious contender going.

By the time Delmon Young and Niemann can make an impact, Baldelli and Crawford will probably be gone. And I don't see B.J. Upton staying there is entire career.

D-Rays are just screwed. Period. They're probably the only team I don't see a glimmer of hope for.

If im right, and the team starts winning around that time, the revenue will start to come in. When that happens, the players will be locked up.

Then again, people said that about the Royals last year and the Reds this year:).

traderumor
06-07-2004, 11:03 PM
First I've made no predictions on Bailey dire or otherwise. I understand that macro numbers are trends and not oracles. Yet the Reds are particularly a team that can't afford failures at this time and I've yet to see anything about Bailey which indicates he's worth this kind of risk. In other words, no one's presenting any micro evidence other than he's a HS pitcher with talent. I know that. Thing is, talent's not hard to find. Guys that can survive the minor league gauntlet and pitch in the majors are. When it comes to that, I'm going to consult the odds.

This is a rewind of the discussions this board had about Gruler two years ago. He was going to kick butt and rise fast we were told. That smooth delivery meant he wasn't going to get injured like those other HS pitchers with their bad mechanics we were told.

That's my breakdown here. You can't promise me anything. You can't even give me good odds. I'm a guy who's worried about the sorry state of the Reds' farm system. I want to see improvement and what they picked was a kid who, if he stays on track, will make it to AA to start the 2007 season.

It's a policy that's failed the Reds of late. They've had a world to trouble keeping pitchers, particularly HS arms, healthy and they're back at it. To me Bailey's a bad fit for a this organization and a terribly unfortunate selection given some of the talent that was still on the board.

No one can promise anything when it comes to draft picks, so nor could you if we picked the boy you've been pimping. I've stated several times that I understand the risky nature of the pick and that the odds are against him, but that there are also some legitimate arguments for the other side that have to be considered. I like to consider that there are some valid business reasons to make risky moves, regardless of what JP Riccardi says, and that it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Plus, if the Reds are a team that cannot afford failure, then I do not see why part of an ongoing criticism is to not spend enough money on the draft, because that is some of the riskiest money spent by every team year after year, regardless of whether they perform "Moneyball" drafts or not. After all, this discussion is centering around taking a HS pitcher in the first round, not the entire draft.

BTW, I would consider repeatedly stating the point that why will Bailey be any different than Gruler and reminding us several times of the odds against him quite dire predictions. Perhaps I misunderstood.

MWM
06-07-2004, 11:24 PM
But what I find interesting about that mindset is that Nelson is considered a sure thing, I guess since we didn't draft him, while the guy we pick is doomed to failure. Guess its just the nature of a fan. :confused:
Not a sure thing, but a much better bet, IMO.

M2
06-07-2004, 11:36 PM
BTW, I would consider repeatedly stating the point that why will Bailey be any different than Gruler and reminding us several times of the odds against him quite dire predictions. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Odds are odds. Similarities are similarities. Those would have been enough to keep me away and certainly those things, coupled with the level of talent still on the board, are why I think the Reds took a needless risk.

Prediction? There's simply nothing in Bailey's resume from which I would try to project his performance. We'll start finding out about him in rookie ball. One of the reasons why I liked Nelson so much was that, unlike Bailey, he'd gone against the best HS players in the nation and proven himself exceptional. Given his tools and makeup I see no reason why he wouldn't continue in that vein. With Bailey I'm not going to pretend I can predict anything. Thing is, I'm fairly certain the Reds can't do it either.

They clearly went for tools in this draft (something JimBo was tarred and feathered for, btw). I like tools too, but the Reds draft really comes down to the judgment of the folks making the picks. Moreso than other teams, evaluating the Reds' picks involves your level of trust in the people making the call. Given the track record of Terry Reynolds and the Reds scouting department, I'd like to see more picks that can be independently verified as having been good moves.

MWM
06-07-2004, 11:42 PM
No one can promise anything when it comes to draft picks, so nor could you if we picked the boy you've been pimping.
Well hell, why not pick the names out of a hat then. Or better yet, just pick the player who will sign for the cheapest.


I've stated several times that I understand the risky nature of the pick and that the odds are against him, but that there are also some legitimate arguments for the other side that have to be considered.
if you understand that the odds are against him, why wouldn't you be in favor of them reducing the risk and taking a pick with better odds and similar upside?


I like to consider that there are some valid business reasons to make risky moves
The same arguments that were used to draft Gruler and Howington and many others. Of course there are reasons for it or else they wouldn't have done it.

TR, honestly, I can't tell if you're disagreeing with us, if you like the pick, or if you're just trying to argue the other side. ;)

I can only speak for myself, but I do understand the other side of the arguments. Honest, I do. But I strongly disagree with that side of the fence. That doesn't mean I haven't considered it or don't understand it. I get the impression that that's what you are perceiving. Hey, I understand where they're coming from. I think it's a philosophy set up to fail, especially with the current state of the farm. And I'm just expressing that opinion. Nothing more.

Just because someone strongly opposes an ideology does not mean they don't understand it or haven't considered it's merits. Some people seem opposed on disagreement with moves like this on principle. I might not have a job in baseball, but I still am going to express my displeasure. I'm more than aware of the fact that I might be proven dead wrong.

traderumor
06-08-2004, 12:17 AM
TR, honestly, I can't tell if you're disagreeing with us, if you like the pick, or if you're just trying to argue the other side.

Honestly, I can simply see both sides of this argument. It is kind of interesting to see you make a prediction that our guy will bomb and this guy Nelson will make us sorry we didn't pick him. I do not understand why saying something like that isn't going out on a limb anymore than you think the Reds did with this pick. That mindset puzzles me. Do I hear what you and M2 have been pounding your fists on the pulpit about? Sure, and for an overall draft strategy, your positions have merits. One thing I am curious about is what is behind the phenomena regarding the HS vs. college pitcher picks. But for this one pick, I think you both have went a bit overboard and touted one other player as clearly a superior pick. I refuse to be so dismissive of players based on one attribute.

BigRed75
06-08-2004, 12:18 AM
Ive been watching video clips over Bailey, and the more I see his delivery, the more I see Roy Oswalt. His delivery doesnt seem near as violent though as what I had imagined(which could be a good sign).

On a side comment, I think the DRays are going to be the Detroit Lions of baseball(improving quickly). Niemann is a beast, 6'9 with a Barry Zitolike curveball and probably more gas than Zito. Add that to Crawford, Baldelli, Delmon Young, and BJ Upton, and yikes.

I too have been watching the video clips of Bailey and several other players. This kids delivery is so smooth and effortless I couldn't believe he was getting the ball up to 95 mph. If you're looking for a bona fide #1, this kid looks like he's got the tools. The other important factor is, according to articles, he's extremely mature. I have to admit that Chris Nelson's clips looked damn good too. He's got a great swing!

MWM
06-08-2004, 12:39 AM
It is kind of interesting to see you make a prediction that our guy will bomb and this guy Nelson will make us sorry we didn't pick him. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These are the types of things that make me want to bang my head against the wall!!!!!!!!

I respect you, tr, and I know you're smarter than this (not as far as agreeing with me, but relating to projecting an argument never made). I'll try this again. I, nor anyone else, made a prediction that Bailey will bomb and Nelson will wind up in the hall of fame. All we've talked about is probabilities and liklihoods. I can't predict what Bailey and Nelson will do. I'd never try. But I can say with relative confidence that it's more likely that Nelson will wind up being an impact player in the big leagues than Bailey.



One thing I am curious about is what is behind the phenomena regarding the HS vs. college pitcher picks.

I don't know what's behind it but here's a few facts posted earlier in the thread:

From 1985 through 1997, 93 pitchers from four-year colleges were drafted in the first round, and 72 of them (77.4 percent) have reached the majors.

From 1985 through 1997, 61 pitchers from high schools were drafted in the first round, and 35 of them (57.3 percent) have reached the majors.

The college pitchers who have reached the majors have thrown more innings with a lower ERA than the high-school pitchers who have reached the majors.

Over that same 13-year span, only one high-school first-rounder (Kerry Wood) has a career ERA under 4.00; 16 college first-rounders do.



But for this one pick, I think you both have went a bit overboard and touted one other player as clearly a superior pick. I refuse to be so dismissive of players based on one attribute.
This isn't just about Nelson vs Bailey. The desire to hae Chris Nelson isn't as strong as the desire for a different approach to the draft. There are several other picks I would have been more satisfied with. Maybe I have gone overboard. Afterall, it is just one pick. But, like I said earlier, it's not the pick itself as much as what the pick represents (and the rest of the draft for that matter). That's what's fueling most of my reaction. It's not that I'm overly repulsed by Bailey. As far as HS pitchers go, he's probably as good as any. I was just hoping for a new way of thinking, because the old way clearly didn't work.

Cedric
06-08-2004, 01:00 AM
How did you not say that? You said in three years people will wish they had picked Nelson, basically exactly what Traderumor said.

MWM
06-08-2004, 01:07 AM
I said I would be surprised. It's just another way of saying it's much more likely that Nelson will have a big impact on a big league club than Bailey. That was the intent of my comment.

No pick is a sure thing, but based on my reading, Nelson is as close as they come.

MWM
06-08-2004, 01:08 AM
It's been a good discussion, but i think i'm going to call a cease fire here and bow out.

Cedric
06-08-2004, 01:11 AM
Good chatting MWM, you are a very smart man.

Bill
06-08-2004, 01:27 AM
Seems like last year's thread was filled with optimistic talk about Wagner, Rondo, Lewis, Cornell, D'alessio, Pauley, Dixon etc. Some tested, experienced arms and a few nice high ceiling HS bats. This years has been primarily a debate on college vs HS pitchers. Ignoring that tired discussion, there is not much excitement over the post round 1 draftees and I think that is telling. Last year they selected several high ceiling flyers whom the questions lay in whether they would go to college or a thumb would heal. This year, the high ceiling picks were more troubled kids than college bound and the college bats do not seem much different than the Bassetts, junior Ruiz and Williamson picks of previous drafts.

I am very underwhelmed. Just when they seemed to get it (last year), we get more of the same.

oregonred
06-08-2004, 03:04 AM
Given all the arguments about the Reds failure to draft an arm who can help in the next 1-2 years...

I've argued statistically only 5-8 #1/#2 rotation guys will emerge a year across all of baseball. Maybe 1-3 guys a year emerge from round 1 that fit the top of the rotation billing. The rest come from later round picks and overseas.

Can someone list the "impact" college pitchers from Round 1 drafted from '00-'02? Other than Prior (surefire ace and obvious #1 choice). After a quick glance at a couple of the years I see almost no contributors (let alone significant contributors) from the college pitching ranks even 3-4 years later that have emerged. This despite a huge number of college arms taken in round one. Note: not many HS'ers fit the bill either but probably need to look at the '97-'99 draft to see the fallout...

History says an immediate impact within 2-3 years is basically a long shot for even the first rounders. Even for college pitching (minus consensus can't misses like Prior and Mulder)

2000 Draft (Round 1)
1 Florida Adrian Gonzalez 1B Eastlake HS (Bonita, Calif.)
2 Minnesota Adam Johnson RHP Cal State Fullerton
3 Chicago (NL) Luis Montanez SS Miami (Fla) Coral Park HS
4 Kansas City Michael Stodolka LHP Centennial HS (Corona, Calif.)
5 Montreal Justin Wayne RHP Stanford
6 Tampa Bay Rocco Baldelli CF Bishop Hendricken School (Cumberland, R.I.)
7 Colorado Matthew Harrington RHP Palmdale (Calif.) HS
8 Detroit Matthew Wheatland RHP Rancho Bernardo HS (Poway, Calif.)
9 San Diego Mark Phillips LHP Hanover (Pa.) HS
10 Anaheim Joseph Torres LHP Gateway HS (Kissimmee, Fla.)
11 Milwaukee David Krynzel CF Green Valley HS (Henderson, Nev.)
12 Chicago (AL) Joseph Borchard RF Stanford
13 St. Louis Shaun Boyd 2B Vista HS (Pala, Calif.)
14 Baltimore Beau Hale RHP Texas
15 Philadelphia Chase Utley 2B UCLA
16 New York (NL) William Traber LHP Loyola Marymount
17 Los Angeles Benjamin Diggins RHP Arizona
18 Toronto Miguel Negron CF Manuela Toro HS (Caguas, P.R.)
19 Pittsburgh Sean Burnett LHP Wellington (Fla.) Community HS
20 Anaheim Christopher Bootchec RHP Auburn
21 San Francisco John Bonser RHP Gibbs Senior HS (Pinellas Park, Fla.)
22 Boston Phillip Dumatrait LHP Bakersfield College
23 Cincinnati David Espinosa SS Gulliver Preparatory (Miami)
24 St. Louis Blake Williams RHP Southwest Texas State
25 Texas Scott Heard C Rancho Bernardo HS (San Diego)
26 Cleveland Corey Smith SS Piscataway (N.J.) HS
27 Houston Robert Stiehl C El Camino College
28 New York (AL) David Parrish C Michigan
29 Atlanta Adam Wainwright RHP Glynn Academy (St. Simons, Ga.)
30 Atlanta Scott Thorman 3B Preston HS (Cambridge, Conn.)



2001 1st Round
1. Minnesota -- Joe Mauer, c, Cretin-Derham Hall HS, St. Paul, Minn.
2. Chicago (NL) -- Mark Prior, rhp, Southern California
3. Tampa Bay -- Dewon Brazelton, rhp, Middle Tennessee State
4. Philadelphia -- Gavin Floyd, rhp, Mt. St. Joseph HS, Severna Park, Md.
5. Texas -- Mark Teixeira, 3b, Georgia Tech
6. Montreal -- Josh Karp, rhp, UCLA
7. Baltimore -- Chris Smith, lhp, Cumberland (Tenn.) University
8. Pittsburgh -- John VanBenschoten, 1b, Kent State
9. Kansas City -- Colt Griffin, rhp, Marshall HS, Marshall, Texas
10. Houston -- Chris Burke, ss, Tennessee
11. Detroit -- Kenny Baugh, rhp, Rice
12. Milwaukee -- Mike Jones, rhp, Thunderbird HS, Phoenix
13. Anaheim -- Casey Kotchman, 1b, Seminole HS, Seminole, Fla.
14. San Diego -- Jake Gautreau, 3b, Tulane
15. Toronto -- Gabe Gross, of, Auburn University
16. Chicago (AL) (from Florida) -- Kris Honel, rhp, Providence Catholic HS, New Lenox, Ill.
17. Cleveland (from Boston) -- Dan Denham, rhp, Deer Valley HS, Antioch, California
18. New York (NL) (from Colorado) -- Aaron Heilman, rhp, Notre Dame
19. Baltimore (from New York - AL) -- Mike Fontenot, 2b, LSU
20. Cincinnati -- Jeremy Sowers, lhp, Ballard HS, Louisville, Kent.
21. San Francisco (from Cleveland) -- Brad Hennessey, rhp, Youngstown State
22. Arizona -- Jason Bulger, rhp, Valdosta State
23. New York (AL) (from Seattle) -- John-Ford Griffin, of, Florida State
24. Atlanta (from Los Angeles) -- Macay McBride, lhp, Screven County HS, Sylvania, Ga.
25. Oakland -- Bobby Crosby, ss, Long Beach State
26. Oakland (from New York - NL) -- Jeremy Bonderman, rhp, Pasco HS, Pasco, Wash.
27. Cleveland (from Chicago - AL) -- Alan Horne, rhp, Marianna HS, Marianna, Fla.
28. St. Louis -- Justin Pope, rhp, Central Florida
29. Atlanta -- Josh Burrus, ss, Wheeler HS, Marietta, Ga.
30. San Francisco -- Noah Lowery, lhp, Pepperdine

2002 Draft (Round 1)
1. Pittsburgh, Bryan Bullington, rhp, Ball State
2. Tampa Bay, B.J. Upton, ss, Greenbrier Christian Academy, Chesapeake, Va.
3. Cincinnati, Chris Gruler, rhp, Liberty HS, Brentwood, Calif.
4. Baltimore, Adam Loewen, lhp, Fraser Valley Christian, Surrey, B.
5. Montreal, Clint Everts, rhp, Cypress Falls HS, Houston.
6. Kansas City, Zack Greinke, rhp, Apopka (Fla.) HS.
7. Milwaukee, Prince Fielder, 1b, Eau Gallie HS, Melbourne, Fla.
8. Detroit, Scott Moore, ss, Cypress (Calif.) HS.
9. Colorado, Jeff Francis, lhp, U. of British Columbia.
10. Texas, Drew Meyer, ss, South Carolina.
11. Florida, Jeremy Hermida, of, Wheeler HS, Marietta, Ga.
12. Anaheim, Joe Saunders, lhp, Virginia Tech.
13. San Diego, Khalil Greene, ss, Clemson.
14. Toronto, Russ Adams, ss, North Carolina.
15. N.Y. Mets, Scott Kazmir, lhp, Cypress Falls HS, Houston.
16. Oakland (from Boston for Johnny Damon), Nick Swisher, 1b-of, Ohio State.
17. Philadelphia, Cole Hamels, lhp, Rancho Bernardo HS, San Diego.
18. Chicago White Sox, Roger Ring, lhp, San Diego State.
19. Los Angeles, James Loney, 1b, Lawrence Elkins HS, Missouri City, Texas.
20. Minnesota, Denard Span, of, Catholic HS, Tampa, Fla.
21. Chicago Cubs, Bobby Brownlie, rhp, Rutgers.
22. Cleveland, Jeremy Guthrie, rhp, Stanford.
23. Atlanta, Jeff Francoeur, of, Parkview HS, Lilburn, Ga.
24. Oakland (from N.Y. Yankees; Jason Giambi), Joseph Blanton, rhp, Kentucky.
25. San Francisco, Matt Cain, rhp, Houston HS, Germantown, Tenn.
26. Oakland, John McCurdy, ss, Maryland.
27. Arizona, Sergio Santos, ss, Mater Dei HS, Hacienda Heights, Calif.
28. Seattle, John Mayberry, Jr., 1b, Rockhurst HS, Kansas City, Mo.
29. Houston, Derick Grigsby, rhp, Northeast Texas CC.
30. Oakland (from St. Louis; Jason Isringhausen), Ben Fritz, rhp, Fresno State.

Sandwich picks before second round
31. Los Angeles - Gregory Miller, lhp, Esperanza HS (Calif.)
32. Chicago (NL) - Luke Hagerty, lhp, Ball State
33. Cleveland - Matthew Whitney, 3b, Palm Beach Gardens HS (Fla.)
34. Atlanta - Daniel Meyer, lhp, James Madison
35. Oakland - Jeremy Brown, c, Alabama
36. Chicago (NL) - Chad Blasko, rhp, Purdue
37. Oakland - Stephen Obenchain, rhp, Evansville
38. Chicago (NL) - Matthew Clanton, rhp, Orange Coast CC
39. Oakland - Mark Teahen, 3b, St. Mary's College
40. Cincinnati - Mark Schramek, rhp, Texas
41. Cleveland - Micah Schilling, 2b, Sillman Institute

traderumor
06-08-2004, 09:19 AM
I'd be surprised if three years from now, people here on RedsZone who weren't around for this draft or who didn't pay much attention will be shaking their heads asking this question, "You mean we could have had Chris Nelson and we ended up taking homer Bailey?" Wow!

MWM,

If you're gonna accuse me of not getting it, I can read. If that makes you feel like banging your head against the wall, then you understand my frustration as well, when I take what someone says in a post and they tell me that they didn't say that. Also, O'Brien says pretty much what I've been saying all along, they know its a calculated risk but came to the conclusion that this might be a stock that takes off one day. Ok, so some think they're idiots for taking that chance. Like I said elsewhere, it is only fair to let them draft who they believe the BPA was and not have to be subject to the history of another regime's draft picks and let them have their own history starting with this draft, not condemning them for picks someone else made. Who knows, maybe "three years from now" or later folks will be amazed at how the Reds have been able to buck the odds and convert two high school arms into members of the rotation. If that makes me a fool for understanding that is against probability tables but could happen, then I'll just have to admit that I don't make every decision based on actuarial tables, and apparently, neither do O'Brien and Reynolds.

M2
06-08-2004, 10:14 AM
Seems like last year's thread was filled with optimistic talk about Wagner, Rondo, Lewis, Cornell, D'alessio, Pauley, Dixon etc. Some tested, experienced arms and a few nice high ceiling HS bats. This years has been primarily a debate on college vs HS pitchers. Ignoring that tired discussion, there is not much excitement over the post round 1 draftees and I think that is telling. Last year they selected several high ceiling flyers whom the questions lay in whether they would go to college or a thumb would heal. This year, the high ceiling picks were more troubled kids than college bound and the college bats do not seem much different than the Bassetts, junior Ruiz and Williamson picks of previous drafts.

I am very underwhelmed. Just when they seemed to get it (last year), we get more of the same.

My feelings exactly. To the team's credit, the 2002 draft featured a lot of overdrafts taken in the name of staying within budget. That wasn't necessarily the case this year, though I think it will prove a budget-friendly draft (they've got a few problem children who'll have to take what they're offered). Yet, unless guys like Bailey, Szymanski and Strait prove apt pupils, this group has the potential to whittle itself down as quickly as the 2002 class (with Joey Votto and Chris Denorfia the only two looking particularly prospecty these days).



History says an immediate impact within 2-3 years is basically a long shot for even the first rounders. Even for college pitching (minus consensus can't misses like Prior and Mulder)

Spot on (and on a separate note, how bad was that 2000 draft? -- got to be among the worst ever), rule of thumb I use is you tack five years onto it and that's when you can expect to see a large number of players from a given draft making it to the majors. One caveat, the "Moneyball" draft class of 2002 has been advanced quickly and it looks like many of those guys are on a three- or four-year arc. That doesn't mean they're any sort of superior talent, but Beane's plan to use all those picks to restock the system, get players to the majors post haste and have lots of trade flexibility looks to be on track.

The Reds may even be six or seven years off with HS arms like Bailey, Gonzalez, Valiquette and Young. That's how long it took Roy Halladay and Curt Schilling. They've really put a hot potato in the laps of the developmental folks. One way or another Tim Naehring's team is going to get a chance to prove itself.

MWM
06-08-2004, 10:20 AM
I said I would be surprised. It's just another way of saying it's much more likely that Nelson will have a big impact on a big league club than Bailey. That was the intent of my comment.

I'm not going to make any new arguments, but I will re-post what I already posted on my intent with the comment because you apparently missed it. If you want to project your own beliefs on my comments, feel free. By saying I'd be surprised, I simply meant that it's much more likely. But you obviously know what I meant moreso than I did. The snide "actuarial table comments" are old and tired, just trying to paint a picture of guys who believe like me as robots who see only numbers.

But if you gain comfort in the track record of guys like Reynolds, I have no problem with that. If you believe in the same tired arguments that have been made over and over and over again with no success, then don't ridicule me for choosing to believe in a different path, and for feeling the liberty to express such an opinion.

Bill
06-08-2004, 10:20 AM
It appears the Reds are hooking their starting pitching wagon up to Bailey, Young, Gonzalez and Valiquette. Certainly those are four talented arms, all throw hard. Knowing what we already know about high school arms, they are already at a disadvantage to make it to the bigs, particularly with the Reds. Even if three of them can stay healthy, they have far to go in the development stage with lots of hard work.

That's where makeup comes into play. Gonzalez has not even pitched for his last two high schools as he would not do the academic work required and he let Luis Polonia drag him back to the DR in a futile attempt to avoid the draft. He has also added weight over this time. Does this kid have the determination and work ethic required to stick with several years of development? Does Terrell Young, who is said to lack maturity and already has a three year old kid? Now baseball is not rocket science so I don't care about the reports on taking special ed classes, but if a kid with his arm and an easy sign falls to 9, then I believe the maturity questions. Again I ask, is this the type of kid that will persevere over all the obstacles and time to become a productive major leaguer.

You've got to handicap the above two selections to make it, laying our hopes squarely on Bailey and Valiquette to stay healthy and develop into big league pitchers. It's possible but even if they make it, will it be in time to save Obrien's job? Sure the potential reward is great for these four young arms, but why take such great risks of both time and failure?

WVRed
06-08-2004, 10:24 AM
Odds are odds. Similarities are similarities. Those would have been enough to keep me away and certainly those things, coupled with the level of talent still on the board, are why I think the Reds took a needless risk.

Prediction? There's simply nothing in Bailey's resume from which I would try to project his performance. We'll start finding out about him in rookie ball. One of the reasons why I liked Nelson so much was that, unlike Bailey, he'd gone against the best HS players in the nation and proven himself exceptional. Given his tools and makeup I see no reason why he wouldn't continue in that vein. With Bailey I'm not going to pretend I can predict anything. Thing is, I'm fairly certain the Reds can't do it either.

They clearly went for tools in this draft (something JimBo was tarred and feathered for, btw). I like tools too, but the Reds draft really comes down to the judgment of the folks making the picks. Moreso than other teams, evaluating the Reds' picks involves your level of trust in the people making the call. Given the track record of Terry Reynolds and the Reds scouting department, I'd like to see more picks that can be independently verified as having been good moves.

For the record, Bailey outdueled Ryan Wagner in Wagners senior year of HS in a Class 3A championship. I had also read that he had beaten Scott Kazmir as well.

Dont get me wrong, I like Nelson, as a matter of fact, I had him and Bailey 1A and 1B. While Nelson has a good enough bat to hit 25-30 HRs(not factoring Coors inflation), Bailey has the ability to be a pitcher that can rival the Woods, Priors, and Oswalts.

westofyou
06-08-2004, 10:41 AM
(and on a separate note, how bad was that 2000 draft? -- got to be among the worst ever)

From BP yesterday

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2945


The emphasis on the first round is why teams should be a bit nervous about today's festivities. Four years ago, the player pool was similarly unexciting, and the first 30 picks from the 2000 draft have generated precious little performance, and the players still labeled prospects show little sign of saving the first round of that draft. The first round of that draft appears to be on its way to being labeled a complete disaster.

Just as one measure, take a look at the composite MLB numbers for that group as of this morning:

Hitters (four players): .271 BA, 316 OBP, .400 SLG in 1286 PA. 27 SB, 11 CS
Pitchers (six players): 234 IP, 168 ER, 114 BB, 164 K, 12-23 record, 6.46 ERA

That's not entirely fair as a marker--those players are in just their fourth professional season--but when you look at the names in that first round, you see that those stat lines aren't going to get much better. Adrian Gonzalez, the Marlins' signability pick at #1, is a B prospect at first base. The #2 pick, Adam Johnson, has struggled. Overall, 10 ten of these guys have reached the majors, with the best of them a flawed center fielder, Rocco Baldelli. The bulk of the pitching performance is by Billy Traber, who is out for the year after undergoing Tommy John surgery.

Just two players from that first round made our Top 50 Prospects list, both of those (Adam Wainwright and Sean Burnett) in the bottom 10. Gonzalez will probably have a career, and Chase Utley and David Krynzel might. It's possible, even probable, that not one of the players taken in the first round of the 2000 draft will ever make an All-Star team. I can't find a draft, going back to 1989's, in which that was true.

Right now, the 30 players from that group are distributed as follows:


MLB: 3
Triple-A: 8
Double-A: 5
High A: 2
Low A: 1
Not playing this year (injured): 7
Out of organized baseball: 4


Five of the top 10 picks in that draft have yet to play in organized baseball this season. All five of them are high-school pitchers, four of them derailed by injuries, one by...well, I'll leave it to others to sort out blame in the case of Matt Harrington. More than one-third of the first-round picks in the 2000 draft aren't playing baseball for an affiliated team this year. By any standards, that's a disaster.

The total cost for all of this? A mere $57,255,000, or about 1.05 Dreifort. The 11 players who aren't playing this year, just four years after being drafted, combined for about $15 million of that.

REDREAD
06-08-2004, 10:42 AM
This year, the high ceiling picks were more troubled kids than college bound and the college bats do not seem much different than the Bassetts, junior Ruiz and Williamson picks of previous drafts.

I am very underwhelmed. Just when they seemed to get it (last year), we get more of the same.

Good point bill.. it does seem that we got more potential "problem children" this year.
It's kind of obvious that the new regime thinks these guys are undervalued.
Maybe they think their new disciplined system will straighten it out.

I really know nothing about any of the guys from round 2 and on, just the clips everyone
else has read. But it's kind of sad to see little enthusiasm in the latter picks (Although
some people got excited about #2)..

But I guess if we had drafted Nelson or a college pitcher first, people would've been
a lot more upbeat about the rest of the draft. So maybe the 2nd and later rounds were good,
the wind was just knocked out of a lot of folks' sails with the #1 pick..

We'll see. I hope some of these guys pan out.

NC Reds
06-08-2004, 10:55 AM
Moving on to Day Two. I can not believe this player is still on the board. Someone get DanO on the line.

ECU'S Ryan Jones Named a Finalist for Dick Howser Trophy

06/04/2004


PICTURED: Ryan Jones (Photo by Kip Sloan)
CHICAGO - East Carolina senior DH/OF Ryan Jones has been named as one of 10 finalists for the Dick Howser Trophy, given to collegiate baseball's top player. The National Collegiate Baseball Writers Association, which works in association with the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce on the award, released the list of the 10 finalists for the trophy today. The membership of the NCBWA will choose the Dick Howser Trophy based on three rounds of voting. The 2004 winner will be announced at the College World Series in Omaha on Friday, June 18 at 9:30 a.m. CDT.

Jones was named the 2004 Conference USA Player of the Year after hitting .409 heading into the conference tournament and finishing league play hitting .407 in conference. Currently, he leads the nation in slugging percentage (.834) with 46 of his 80 hits serving as extra-base hits including 24 doubles, four triples and 18 home runs for a team-high 66 RBI. Jones posted 24 multiple hit games and 14 multiple RBI games.

On Thursday, Jones was named a first team All-American by Louisville Slugger/Collegiate Baseball.

The other finalists include: Rutgers P Jeff Frazier, Nebraska 3B Alex Gordon, Ole Miss 1B/P Stephen Head, Texas P J.P. Howell, Rice P Philip Humber, Virginia UT Joe Koshansky, Stanford 2B Jed Lowrie, South Carolina C Landon Powell and Long Beach State P Jered Weaver.

The Dick Howser Trophy, given in memory of the former Florida State University All-America shortstop and major league player and manager who died of brain cancer in 1987, is regarded by many as college baseball's most prestigious award.

Criteria for consideration for the trophy include performance on the field, leadership, moral character and courage, qualities that were exemplified by Dick Howser's life.

traderumor
06-08-2004, 11:07 AM
I'm not going to make any new arguments, but I will re-post what I already posted on my intent with the comment because you apparently missed it. If you want to project your own beliefs on my comments, feel free. By saying I'd be surprised, I simply meant that it's much more likely. But you obviously know what I meant moreso than I did. The snide "actuarial table comments" are old and tired, just trying to paint a picture of guys who believe like me as robots who see only numbers.

But if you gain comfort in the track record of guys like Reynolds, I have no problem with that. If you believe in the same tired arguments that have been made over and over and over again with no success, then don't ridicule me for choosing to believe in a different path, and for feeling the liberty to express such an opinion.
Ok, but the second paragraph is a new argument ;) No where did I approach the track record of Terry Reynolds. Not qualified to do so and haven't. The actuarial table comment was not snide, that is what you have been arguing with since yesterday about one draft pick. And liberty to express an opinion? So do the folks who shrug their shoulders and say, "man, this kid might be something special since those in charge acknowledged that they understood about the lack of experience of this kid but are willing to take that chance anyways." What I find most interesting of all about this entire discussion is that folks play the armchair QB as if they are more qualified than the one's making the decisions, but then when you question their opinion, they distance themselves from being an expert.

gm
06-08-2004, 11:09 AM
""When we took over, we needed to restock the organization quickly and do it with college players...People forget I am a scout, first and foremost. I look forward to the day when we've come far enough as an organization that we draft a high school player in the first round."
--J.P. Ricciardi, Blue Jays general manager (ESPN.com)

The new assistant GM for the A's was interviewed during the game last night, and he reiterated Oakland's SOP to draft college pitchers. He also said the former Oakland execs (Ricciardi, DePodesta) were likely to do the same. If enough GMs ascribe to this mindset, HS pitchers should begin to "slide" down the draft board, and be available to GMs who are willing to take the risk

I'm not saying it's right, but it could have something to do with Reynolds' about-face in the 2004 draft. (As Yogi Berra would say) "when you come to the BPA 'fork' in the road, take it"

Bill
06-08-2004, 11:12 AM
Yeah Syzmanski is not a bad pick at two even if he is a 5-tool OF in need of plate patience. A little nostalgia never hurt.

He's smart and it should come with more playing time.

MWM
06-08-2004, 11:13 AM
The new assistant GM for the A's was interviewed during the game last night, and he reiterated Oakland's SOP to draft college pitchers. He also said the former Oakland execs (Ricciardi, DePodesta) were likely to do the same. If enough GMs ascribe to this mindset, HS pitchers should begin to "slide" down the draft board, and be available to GMs who are willing to take the risk

I'm not saying it's right, but it could have something to do with Reynolds' about-face in the 2004 draft. (As Yogi Berra would say) "when you come to the BPA 'fork' in the road, take it"

Don't look now, but you just described the "Moneyball" approach you loathe so much.

M2
06-08-2004, 11:21 AM
The new assistant GM for the A's was interviewed during the game last night, and he reiterated Oakland's SOP to draft college pitchers. He also said the former Oakland execs (Ricciardi, DePodesta) were likely to do the same. If enough GMs ascribe to this mindset, HS pitchers should begin to "slide" down the draft board, and be available to GMs who are willing to take the risk

I'm not saying it's right, but it could have something to do with Reynolds' about-face in the 2004 draft. (As Yogi Berra would say) "when you come to the BPA 'fork' in the road, take it"

Except the Reds made four of their top five pitching selections HS arms. Sure looks like the prioritized HS pitchers.

lollipopcurve
06-08-2004, 11:32 AM
Read BA's Jim Callis' just-posted article about the shuffling at the top of the first round. Several mentions of teams considering/wanting Homer, including the Tigers at #2. I think that's pretty good evidence (and we are considering scuttlebutt a form of evidence, right?) that we can be excited about having him in the organization.

Saw somewhere else (or maybe it was the same article) that somebody said there was a "major dropoff" in talent after about the first 8 players. I'm sure Homer is in the first 8. makes me wonder who M2/MWM saw after that top 8 who they'd have rather the Reds chose.

Climbin' on the Bailey bandwagon...

MWM
06-08-2004, 11:43 AM
What I find most interesting of all about this entire discussion is that folks play the armchair QB as if they are more qualified than the one's making the decisions

OK, I'm back in. I admit it, I can't resist, and this is WAY better than doing work (especially useless Sarbanes-Oxley BS :mhcky21: ).

I'll ask you this, what fun is it to be a fan if you can never form your own opinions on moves made by the club? Because your logic dictates that anyone who questions a move made by the decision makers is pretending to be more qualified. Yes, that's the logic your argument follows. Have you ever questioned an in-game move made by Miley or even Boone? If so, what makes you more qualified than them? Sorry, but that's no fun to me.

Why are you so bothered that folks like me don't like the Reynolds/O'Brien approach to the draft? You admitted yourself that there's merits to the philosophy I subscribe to, then you ridicule for me for actually subscribing to it because I'm not an "expert." Seriously, how can you admit someting has merits and then be criticial of those who actually buy into those merits? Because I know I've admitted I see the other side of the argument, so I can't be accused not recognizing the opposing viewpoint. But there's a lot of opposing viewpoints I understand, but that doesn't mean I have to agree. THAT'S THE ONLY THING I'VE DONE HERE - disagree with a philosophy employed by those in charge of the draft for the Reds. Do I have to have a job in baseball to be able to do this?

And you're right, when faced with opposing viewpoints and one of those viewpoints has an overwhelming track record of failure, then I'm likely to want to try the other direction. If actually using the information available to form an opinion (actuarial tables as you call them) makes me a robot, then I'm a robot. Personally, I don't think using readily available concrete information makes me a robot, but so be it if that's what you believe.


but then when you question their opinion, they distance themselves from being an expert.

Again, I'll readily admit I'm no expert. Does that mean I can't have an opinion? Do I have to claim to be an expert to be able to disagree with something the club does? I played baseball my entire life, and following baseball is more than a mere hobby. I read a lot of baseball publications and I'm familiar with the history of the draft. Is that not enough to make me qualified to form an opinion? What do you do when two "experts" have differing opinions? Does the world come crashing down? Afterall, if they're "experts", they must be right. So how is it possible for two "experts" to have completely opposite viewpoints?

chicoruiz
06-08-2004, 11:47 AM
OK, this is weird...I act as GM of the 2004 Reds in an Out Of The Park sim league. We had our draft two weeks ago, and I drafted a HS pitcher in round 1, a college OF in round 2, and a college catcher in round 3.

So I guess I'm not entitled to complain about O'B...:)

Red Leader
06-08-2004, 11:48 AM
What do you do when two "experts" have differing opinions? Does the world come crashing down? Afterall, if they're "experts", they must be right. So how is it possible for two "experts" to have completely opposite viewpoints?


:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

:MandJ: :MandJ: :MandJ:


Oh, and just to share my "non expert" opinion. This draft SUCKS so far for the Reds. Far worse than last year. Granted, most of the time, it takes 2-3 years to evaluate how you've done in a draft to see how these kids are developing. With this draft we'll be lucky to even be able to evaluate them in 2-3 years as a majority of them will probably still be in high A ball....we're loading up for 2010!!! Nice job, DanO.

Aronchis
06-08-2004, 12:04 PM
Let me guess, you didn't see the mostly College bats taken :confused:

The 2003 draft did little for me, as most of the previous Bowden drafts did. Lets see how we look in 2 years.

M2
06-08-2004, 12:40 PM
Read BA's Jim Callis' just-posted article about the shuffling at the top of the first round. Several mentions of teams considering/wanting Homer, including the Tigers at #2. I think that's pretty good evidence (and we are considering scuttlebutt a form of evidence, right?) that we can be excited about having him in the organization.

Saw somewhere else (or maybe it was the same article) that somebody said there was a "major dropoff" in talent after about the first 8 players. I'm sure Homer is in the first 8. makes me wonder who M2/MWM saw after that top 8 who they'd have rather the Reds chose.

Climbin' on the Bailey bandwagon...

I believe I've been fairly vocal about the players I'd have preferred, but just to run it over with a tank, I'd have taken any of the five guys selected immediately after Bailey. IMO, they blew it and blew it hard by skipping over a middle IF who could anchor the team for a long, long time.



The 2003 draft did little for me, as most of the previous Bowden drafts did. Lets see how we look in 2 years.

You could just look at the 2003 draft right now and get some pretty solid evidence that it should have done something for you at the time.

1. Ryan Wagner - First player from the draft to the majors.
2. Thom Pauly - Putting up good power pitcher numbers in High A, looks like he's starting to master the circuit.
3. Jose Ronda - Dynamite start in the GCL last season, starts playing soon in Billings.
4. Kenny Lewis - Same as Ronda.
6. Richie Gardner - One of the top pitchers in the Carolina League.
9. Ben Himes - Showing power in Dayton, though slowed by injury.
16. Chris Dickerson - Enjoying a solid season in Dayton.

Add in a draft-and-follow signing like Calvin Medlock and the 2003 class is off to a fine start.

traderumor
06-08-2004, 12:55 PM
MWM,

No one is trying to suck your fun out of being a fan. But it is funny to watch someone go on and on about how bad a pick this was but then say "I'm not an expert" in the same breath. It isn't about no armchair QBing allowed here, but at some point it is healthy to admit that perhaps, perhaps, the folks that have done a little (ok a lot) more legwork than reading publications and done went and made a draft pick that didn't fit inside some neat little "moneyball pick" box (which just like in high school, when all the non-conformists dressed alike ;) :help: ) might find an exception to a rule. Or they may be the same devil we just got rid of.

But then we have no choice but to see how these doomsday draftpicks work out. Hopefully, even though they have our resident experts scratching their collective heads (and honestly, I do consider someone like M2 a true expert, honestly I wish sometimes he had someone's ear in the FO), some of these picks will work out. Maybe that's a defense mechanism to not let the Reds ruin my day on a daily basis, but I can live with letting circumstances beyond my control not get my panties in a bunch.

gm
06-08-2004, 01:10 PM
Don't look now, but you just described the "Moneyball" approach you loathe so much.

I've been in and out of the Moneyball/sabr "hopper" over the past 4 years, and it's not that I "loathe" it, it's just that I find numerical evaluation of an activity that involves so many immeasurable intangibles to be incomplete

(That is to say, if your team can't execute the fundamentals, it doesn't matter how good their stats are. They're still gonna lose the crucial playoff series)

My comment "I'm not saying it's right" in the above post wasn't meant to say that I believe what the Red's FO did in selecting HS pitchers was necessarily wrong, either. My point was that now there are at least 3 actual Sabr/Moneyball GMs running real ML ballclubs out there, and since they aren't likely to select any HS pitchers in the first round (and few in later rounds) then quality HS pitchers will be available to select further down the board than in year's past. So "the best player available" could be a higher-than-expected rated HS pitcher, which might be why Reynolds/O'Brien went in that direction, yesterday. There's nothing earth-shattering about my comments; don't read into them any further. Only time will tell if the Red's 2004 draft decisions were wise or foolhardy.

gm
06-08-2004, 01:24 PM
...they blew it and blew it hard by skipping over a middle IF who could anchor the team for a long, long time.

3. Jose Ronda - Dynamite start in the GCL last season, starts playing soon in Billings.

Perhaps the Red's FO felt they have their impact MIF, already? Sure, they could've easily developed both Ronda and Nelson and decided who they liked best, later (the old Larkin/Stillwell debate) but MIF doesn't seem to be the direction where they felt they needed an impact player (which shouldn't surprise anyone, considering all the comments from the last 9 months about the team needing to improve pitching depth in the farm system)

I know you're looking for "the next Larkin" but evidently the Red's FO felt that Nelson wasn't that guy. Maybe Ronda will succeed where Reese, Dawkins, Olmedo and Lopez have failed, so far. If Nelson turns into Nomar/Jeter in a few years (and Bailey doesn't develope into a quality ML starting pitcher) you can always repost your displeasure

lollipopcurve
06-08-2004, 01:35 PM
So, M2, you'd have taken a HS catcher over Bailey?
I believe the success rate of HS catchers taken in the first round is the lowest of any position, including HS pitchers. But correct me if I'm wrong.

knuckler
06-08-2004, 01:38 PM
My point was that now there are at least 3 actual Sabr/Moneyball GMs running real ML ballclubs out there, and since they aren't likely to select any HS pitchers in the first round (and few in later rounds) then quality HS pitchers will be available to select further down the board than in year's past. So "the best player available" could be a higher-than-expected rated HS pitcher, which might be why Reynolds/O'Brien went in that direction, yesterday.

In the same vein, the general aversion to high school pitchers means better pickings for those willing to accept the risk.

One interpretation of Moneyball is that a smart organization seeks undervalued talent and exploits it. In the past that meant high OBP hitters, college pitchers, or short pitchers, for example. As the industry picks up on the value of these commodities (my apologies to any players I've dehumanized by referring to them as commodities) the market bids them up and bids down the alternative, be it free-swinging contact hitters or high school pitchers. Like a contrarian stock trader, there is value to be found in bucking the conventional wisdom, if you're smart enough to pick the cherries. :idea:

Did I get enough cliches in there? :RedinDC:

Bill
06-08-2004, 01:41 PM
I've been advocating for several weeks that the Reds consider some high schoolers in rounds 3-5 since the current fad is college guys and that would allow some talented guys to slide. Yet that approach would be put into effect after round 1. Selecting a HS pitcher 7th overall does not take advantage.

They also completely ignored the strength of this draft.

Red Leader
06-08-2004, 01:48 PM
They also completely ignored the strength of this draft.


That is exactly the way I feel and the main reason that I'm upset with the draft so far.

MWM
06-08-2004, 01:55 PM
MWM,

No one is trying to suck your fun out of being a fan. But it is funny to watch someone go on and on about how bad a pick this was but then say "I'm not an expert" in the same breath. It isn't about no armchair QBing allowed here, but at some point it is healthy to admit that perhaps, perhaps, the folks that have done a little (ok a lot) more legwork than reading publications and done went and made a draft pick that didn't fit inside some neat little "moneyball pick" box (which just like in high school, when all the non-conformists dressed alike ;) :help: ) might find an exception to a rule. Or they may be the same devil we just got rid of.

I think we're at that point of both of us saying virtually the same thing every post using different words. You keep talking about how the guys making the decision have done a lot more legwork and have experience doing this. I come back saying they had the same experience and did the same amount of legwork when they drafted Gruler and Howington, etc... You come back with perhaps they see something different. I respond by agreeing that it's possibility, but not one I'd be willing to give $2 - $3MM to. You find it funny that a non-expert feels so strongly about this. I find it funny that folks can give their loyal nod of approval simply because "experts" must know what they're doing. And so on a so forth.

But just so we can agree on something, I will gladly cede the point that "perhaps, perhaps" Bailey will develop into everything these scouts thought he could be. It might sound like I'm arguing against that point, but I never meant to. I sure hope he turns into a perennial 20 game winner, and it's possible he will. But we're both aware of the odds. Can we agree on that?

One last thing, my opinion on this matter was formed long before the release of Moneyball. Moneyball has nothing to do with my opinions on drafting high school pitchers. Henceforth, anyone saying the belief against drafting high school pitchers in the first round with large signing bonuses attached is based on Moneyball will be slapped with a large trout. :evil:

M2
06-08-2004, 01:59 PM
So, M2, you'd have taken a HS catcher over Bailey?
I believe the success rate of HS catchers taken in the first round is the lowest of any position, including HS pitchers. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Walker rated high because of his bat as much as his position. My litmus test on him, or any catcher, would be whether I'd be drafting him there if he played RF or 3B.

Had I been the Reds, and Nelson, Townshend and Diamond were off the board and I didn't want to haggle with Weaver and Drew, then I'd have certainly considered Bailey over Walker. Dexter Fowler, Greg Golson and David Purcey also would have factored into my thinking in that case. Of course, that wasn't the case, because the Reds had the #8 pick and not something in the low teens, thus my extreme disappointment.

traderumor
06-08-2004, 02:01 PM
They also completely ignored the strength of this draft.


That is exactly the way I feel and the main reason that I'm upset with the draft so far.

This seems to be confusing categories. Ok, so there is more of one thing available than another overall, but we are drafting individual players for an individual team. When you're using a BPA approach, which the Reds claim was going to be their primary philosophy, why does it matter what area has the deepest quality (assuming that was indeed the case) to a particular team's draft? That is akin to saying the Bengals should have drafted a QB with their first round pick simply because folks claimed that the overall draft had a glut of good QBs. I'm not following that logic.

M2
06-08-2004, 02:50 PM
This seems to be confusing categories. Ok, so there is more of one thing available than another overall, but we are drafting individual players for an individual team. When you're using a BPA approach, which the Reds claim was going to be their primary philosophy, why does it matter what area has the deepest quality (assuming that was indeed the case) to a particular team's draft? That is akin to saying the Bengals should have drafted a QB with their first round pick simply because folks claimed that the overall draft had a glut of good QBs. I'm not following that logic.

First off, BPA is a subjective measure. Every ratings authority I've seen ranked Nelson in front of Bailey. So it's not like the Reds picked the consensus BPA with their pick. Clearly they used a different, I'd argue flawed, metric.

Beyond that there's an illusion of relativity to deal with, one I whole-heartedly admit to pursuing myself. So Bailey's the best HS pitcher in the nation. What does that mean? How far down the list of college pitchers do you have to go before Bailey's really the better selection? I know that's kind of like asking how many of those scrumptious apples do you have to eat before this orange tastes really great, but that's the dynamic at work here.

Anyway, everyone else is drafting college arms and it's attractive to run toward a high school arm because why get the sixth-best of something when you can get the best of something else? Thing is, there was probably a reason why everyone was drafting those college arms -- they were really good pitchers at a far more advanced level of competition and more physically mature. IMO, the Reds zagged early, while there were still high level college arms on the board. Had Bailey been hanging around on pick #16, his selection would have made a lot more sense and you'd have been spending less for his attractive, if distant upside. And this doesn't even touch upon the BPA, Chris Nelson.

So, if the Reds consciously tried to buck the trend, my argument is they took what might have been a good concept and misapplied it, overdrafting Bailey rather than taking him as an undervalued commodity.

CougarQuest
06-08-2004, 03:08 PM
In the first 30 rounds, here is what the Reds took:

14 pitchers in the first 30 rounds, 7 of them left handers.
3 - RHP out of high school
4 - RHP out of college
2 - LHP out of high school
5 - LHP out of college

C - 2 college, 1 baseball academy
1 - none
2 - 2 college
SS - 1 college, 2 high school
3 - 2 college
OF - 5 college, 1 high school

Red Leader
06-08-2004, 03:19 PM
In the first 30 rounds, here is what the Reds took:

14 pitchers in the first 30 rounds, 7 of them left handers.
3 - RHP out of high school
4 - RHP out of college
2 - LHP out of high school
5 - LHP out of college

C - 2 college, 1 baseball academy
1 - none
2 - 2 college
SS - 1 college, 2 high school
3 - 2 college
OF - 5 college, 1 high school


When you look at it like that, it looks like they have been more weighted toward college players, but if you look at the first 10 picks:
1.RHP-Homer Bailey(LaGrange HS Texas)(6'4 185, R-R)
2.OF-BJ Szymanski(Princeton)(6'5 210, S-R)
3.C-Craig Tatum(Mississippi St)((6'1 215, R-R)
4.RHP-Rafael Gonzalez(George Washington HS NY)(6'3 225, R-R)
5.SS-Paul Janish(Rice University)(6'2 180, R-R)
6.C-Lonny Roa(Puerto Rico Baseball Academy)(6'3 215, R-R)
7.LHP-Phillippe Alexan Valliquette(Canada HS)(6'0 175, L-L)
8.LHP-Gregory Goetz(Bellevue CC)(6'4 195, L-L)
9.2B-Trevor Lawhorn(East Carolina)(6'2 182, R-R)
10.RHP-Terrell Young(Grenada HS)(6'3 175, R-R)


5 pitchers: 4 High School, 1 community college
2 C: 1 college, 1 academy
1 SS: 1 college
1 2B: 1 college
1 OF: 1 college

The arms heavily favor high school in the top of the draft where all of your "major" talent is available.

RedsDude
06-08-2004, 05:19 PM
i have to agree with M2 on this one.

no way in hell can you pass up the chance at the next barry larkin(maybe better) to take another in a long line of arm surgery victems.

look, bailey is a very talented player, and everything looks great from teh outside. he's tall, has a good throwing motion and he throws hard, but chris gruler threw hard too.... i mean, when will this organization (and others) learn that high school pitchers rarely work out. for every kerry wood or josh beckett, there are 3-4 other guys who blow out there arms and never reach their potential. guys like wood and beckett are the exception, not the rule.

now on to nelson. this guy IS bj upton, only about 4 inches shorter. he is a true 5-tool middle infeilder: he hits for average, he hits for power, he runs as well as anyone in the draft, he can pick it at short and despite t.j. surgery, he has an absolute cannon for an arm. imo, he is as close to a shore thing as it gets as far as the baseball draft is concerned.

imo, shortstop is just as big a need as pitching. look at what we have in the minor leagues as far as middle infielders:

felipe lopez: dont make me laugh. "no socks" is NOT a major league player. he's a punk with a weak bat, laughable defense and a general lack of common sense.

rey olmedo: he's a decent little player, but he'll never be more than a juan castro type.

edwin encarnacion: he's gonna be a third baseman.

it's obvious we needed a shortstop, yet the new braintrust decided to waste another high pick on a guy who will probably blow his arm out within the next two years.

for baileys sake, i hope i'm wrong and he can buck the trend of, not only h.s. pitchers, but reds pitchers in general. but i just get the feeling, while chris nelson is playing in all-star games for the colorado rockies, homer will be sitting at home in his cowboy boots, watching the games from his couch.

westofyou
06-08-2004, 05:26 PM
Forgive me if this was already posted

Szymanski was overrated when he was being talked up as a top-10 pick, but he's not too much of a stretch in the second round. He's a converted football player whose numbers don't stand up too well when you adjust for the level of competition. His temper still reflects a football mentality--the word "raw" comes up way too often in discussions of him. That said, he has a high upside, so he was worth a flyer, although the third or fourth round might have fit him better.


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2948

Boyd Nation is the sole author and Webmaster of Boyd's World, a Web site devoted to college baseball rankings, analysis, and opinions.

wheels
06-08-2004, 06:02 PM
Sorry I didn't chime in yesterday....But it just sickens me that they didn't draft Nelson.

While I do believe that Homer Bailey is the next in line at dr K's office, it's not that they drafted him that upsets me the most. Chris Nelson's gonna make all of us shake our heads in disbelief a few years from now. He's a guy that Colorado will build it's franchise around.

Will Homer Bailey be able to match that? My gut feeling tells me no.

Of course we shouldn't be surprised by any of this....Not when you look at the braintrust involved. This front office has displayed an apalling amount of hubris by thumbing thier collective noses at years and years of evidence that drafts like this are poison to the long term health of a small market franchise.

I hope I'm wrong.

MWM
06-08-2004, 07:07 PM
Hey mods, can we archive this one, so when Bailey ends up winning the Cy Young in 4 or 5 years, I can gladly eat the crow I will deserve. :mhcky21:

lollipopcurve
06-08-2004, 09:02 PM
Nelson lovers,
I was hoping for Nelson (or Sowers), but I have to say I think the touting of Nelson around here is premature. Let's remember -- 7 other teams passed on the guy. San Diego liked Bush better. Detroit has no SS to speak of in the majors or minors. Cleveland isn't exactly set at SS either.

If Chris Nelson is a franchise player, a BJ Upton, you guys called it. If he's an average player, then your whole take on this draft will have been wrong, in my opinion. Because as much as the argument has sounded like a "philosophical debate" about drafting HS pitchers, I really think the subtext has been huge disappointment that we didn't pick Nelson. Just my take...

Sometimes the energy that surrounds a super prospect like Upton ebbs into how people perceive the next wave -- "who's the next BJ?" The assumption is that the next BJ must be there somewhere. Now I think the touting of Nelson has some merit, and has been reasonably argued, but the fact is that the buzz around him nationally is not really close to what you had for Upton.

Anyway, Bailey's our guy now. I love the tape I've seen of him, and I like what I've read. Hey, maybe he'll become the ace we've been waiting for.

WVRed
06-08-2004, 09:24 PM
i have to agree with M2 on this one.

no way in hell can you pass up the chance at the next barry larkin(maybe better) to take another in a long line of arm surgery victems.

look, bailey is a very talented player, and everything looks great from teh outside. he's tall, has a good throwing motion and he throws hard, but chris gruler threw hard too.... i mean, when will this organization (and others) learn that high school pitchers rarely work out. for every kerry wood or josh beckett, there are 3-4 other guys who blow out there arms and never reach their potential. guys like wood and beckett are the exception, not the rule.

now on to nelson. this guy IS bj upton, only about 4 inches shorter. he is a true 5-tool middle infeilder: he hits for average, he hits for power, he runs as well as anyone in the draft, he can pick it at short and despite t.j. surgery, he has an absolute cannon for an arm. imo, he is as close to a shore thing as it gets as far as the baseball draft is concerned.

imo, shortstop is just as big a need as pitching. look at what we have in the minor leagues as far as middle infielders:

felipe lopez: dont make me laugh. "no socks" is NOT a major league player. he's a punk with a weak bat, laughable defense and a general lack of common sense.

rey olmedo: he's a decent little player, but he'll never be more than a juan castro type.

edwin encarnacion: he's gonna be a third baseman.

it's obvious we needed a shortstop, yet the new braintrust decided to waste another high pick on a guy who will probably blow his arm out within the next two years.

for baileys sake, i hope i'm wrong and he can buck the trend of, not only h.s. pitchers, but reds pitchers in general. but i just get the feeling, while chris nelson is playing in all-star games for the colorado rockies, homer will be sitting at home in his cowboy boots, watching the games from his couch.

Man alive, you people are writing him off before you even see him pitch. Give him a chance for Petes sake.

As far as the Gruler comparison goes, I blame that on one thing, Jim Bowden. Bowden would have let Ryan Wagner pitch last year until his arm fell off. There is already a pitch limit in place now for our younger pitchers, unlike past regimes.

What makes you so sure that Chris Nelson is going to be BJ Upton? What makes me think Homer Bailey will be a Cy Young candidate? Will BJ Upton even succeed(Since he is still in the minors)? To be honest, I dont think we will ever get a fair reading on Chris Nelson, because he will likely be wearing purple and black and playing in thin air Coors Field(unless his value drops and he is traded).

The fact is, folks, college and high school pitchers are different, yet similar. High schoolers rely more on velocity and power, instead of learning to pitch. Its when the team who falls in love with that power that they flame out. College pitchers learn to pitch in college, and are more polished, and usually make it to the major leagues because of that. But most of them are overvalued because they are a "college" and therefore a "safe" pick(see Bryan Bullington).

I wonder how many people here would have cried if we had been in the Marlins place and had taken Josh Beckett over Kyle Snyder(top collegiate pitcher taken).

If you want to see a good list of college pitchers being picked because they were safe picks, look at the 98 draft. Of the pitchers who have reached the majors(Mark Mulder, Jeff Austin, Jeff Weaver, Seth Etherton, Brad Lidge, and Kip Wells) only one strikes me as dominating(maybe two if Wells would switch teams). My point is that out of the 10 "sure thing" pitchers, only one has made a mark. Even though there were four HS arms taken, one(CC Sabathia) is still establishing himself in Cleveland.

Or if you want to judge whether or not a first round pitcher will make it(HS or College), you can use the 97 draft, where Matt Anderson and Jon Garland might be the closest things.

Now heres an interesting SS debate, the Reds drafted a SS from LSU in the first round of that same 97 draft, yet a slugging 1B from Rice went two picks later, can you guess his name?

Im sure I will never convince M2 or MWM that Bailey was a good pick, nor can they convince me that we made the wrong choice in not taking Nelson. But it also seems that while people mention us taking Chad Mottola over Derek Jeter, we seem to forget that we took a SS in 97 from LSU only to have a slugging 1B taken by the Astros two picks later.

I wish both Bailey and Nelson the best of luck on their journey to the majors, and I think we made a difficult choice in who we took, but one I think could pay dividends if handled the right way.

But until these kids play the game, you cant really make a fair distinction.

CougarQuest
06-08-2004, 09:31 PM
Final tally of the 50 rounds:
23 pitchers, 8 of them left handers.
8 - RHP out of high school
7 - RHP out of college
2 - LHP out of high school
6 - LHP out of college

C - 3 from college, 1 from baseball academy, 1 from high school
1 - 3 out of high school
2 - 2 out of college
SS - 2 out of college, 3 out of high school
3 - 3 out of college
OF - 6 out of college, 3 out of high school

MWM
06-08-2004, 09:41 PM
WVRED, why are so willing to name Bailey a future Cy Young award winner?

WVRed
06-08-2004, 09:58 PM
WVRED, why are so willing to name Bailey a future Cy Young award winner?

I didnt know I was. All I am saying is give the kid a chance.

Im saying that Bailey could be in the same category as other Texas pitchers, such as Kerry Wood and Josh Beckett, but its going to take some teaching and coaching to get him to that level(same as it did the Cubs and Marlins). And I think this is going to be a telling point as to how good Dan O'Brien is. Bailey can be one of the above, or he could be a Todd Van Poppell or Colt Griffin, its up to him and the Reds.

Who knows, he could be a Cy Young winner, or he could be next in line at Dr Ks office. Chris Nelson could be in the ARod mold, or he could be the next in a line of Colorado SSs shown the door(Neifi Perez, Juan Uribe).

The pick has already been made, lets get behind Dan O'Brien and hope that he knows what he is doing.

MWM
06-08-2004, 10:08 PM
I didnt know I was.
Yep, i didn't know I was completely writing the guy off either.

guernsey
06-09-2004, 09:21 PM
From Baseball Prospectus today:



Tommy Used To Work on the Docks: A Return to High School

There's an old joke (somewhat funny if you're from the South) that goes something like this:

Q: What are a redneck's most common last words?
A: Watch this s**t!

The idea being that these are the sort of folk who, by dint of a dare or desire to impress assembled fellow travelers, are prone to try something unspeakably stupid--swallow a buck knife, see if the bees come out, try that long-unused rope swing, do pull-ups from the bridge railing, brawl with federal agents--and wind up offing themselves. There's a point to my telling you this...

We at BP aren't wont to meander into the wilder shores of analyzing high school talent (park factors and levels of competition vary frantically from team to team and region to region, and the troublingly unadjusted numbers that are available are usually the wrong ones). But sometimes Jonah levels his steely editorial gaze at you, and you know you've drawn the short straw. So I'm going to do my best to rank the top five high school players taken in this year's draft. Without further hedging, I invite you to watch this s**t:


Neil Walker, C, Pine Richland HS-Gibsonia, PA
Pirates, 11th overall
Walker batted .580 for the brief, cold-weather season, with 14 of his 22 hits going for extra bases. He also has excellent plate discipline and good speed for a catcher. Throw in some strong bloodlines (his father played for the Expos and older brother was in the Tigers' system for a while) and good catcher's build, and you've got a fine prep prospect. Walker's also a switch-hitter with especially good power from the right side. On the downside, high school-trained catchers have a less than inspiring track record, and the competition in Pennsylvania is less than premium.


Chris Nelson, SS, Redan HS-Decatur, GA
Rockies, ninth overall
Suburban Atlanta, as the Braves have known for years now, is a bit of prep hotbed in terms of baseball talent (Nelson went to the same high school as Brandon Phillips). So while Nelson isn't playing against Florida, Central Texas or Southern California competition, he's by no means sliding by against an undemanding peer group. He's athletic around the bag with good range, so he'll have every chance to stick at short. Nelson has a line-drive swing, and he's already adept at using the whole field. This past season, he batted .582, slugged 1.119 and swiped 25 bags. Scouts think he'll show solid gap-power numbers in the majors. He's not rated as having exceptional plate discipline, but unfortunately the numbers aren't there to evaluate him further from that vital standpoint.


Homer Bailey, RHP, LaGrange HS-LaGrange, TX
Reds, seventh overall
Bailey hails from LaGrange, which is about halfway between Austin and Houston and smack dab in the middle of the fertile crescent for fire-balling prep right-handers. The competition there is tough, and Bailey destroyed all comers: 66 innings, 157 strikeouts, nine walks, 17 hits, 0.21 ERA. For those counting, that's a comedic K/BB ratio of 17.4. His fastball ranges from 92 to 96, and his sharp curve is also a devastating pitch. Like all other young, raw power pitchers, he'll need to stay healthy and refine his change-up. There's lots to like from a scouting as well as a performance standpoint--as far as high school numbers will take you, that is. The odds against high school pitchers mean his road will likely be a long and treacherous one.


Matt Bush, SS, Mission Bay HS-El Cajon, CA
Padres, first overall
The ballyhooed top overall pick was regarded as the second-best prep shortstop available in most quarters. On the plus side, he's an excellent defender who should only get better as he matures and refines his instincts. Bush has great footwork and can adroitly turn the double play. Bush also sports a mid-90s fastball, so you know he's got the arm for short. His offensive numbers aren't overwhelming at first blush (.400 AVG, .738 SLG), but he was playing against premium SoCal competition. He's a contact hitter who handles fastballs with aplomb, but his ability to handle breaking pitches is somewhat suspect at this point. His plate discipline needs some improvement, but he's in an organization that stresses it. As a high-school talent, Bush will have plenty of developmental time to tailor his approach at the plate.


Billy Killian, C, Chippewa Hills HS-Stanwood, MI
Padres, 72nd overall
If there's such thing as a third-round sleeper, it may be Killian. Widely hailed as the best player in Michigan, Killian had first-round abilities but dropped to the third mostly because scouts didn't care for his thin build (6'1'', 185). He has outstanding plate discipline and batted a ridiculous .766 this season while slugging 1.367 (small sample size alert! Only 30 ABs). He's also a switch-hitter. On the defensive side, he's very athletic for a backstop and boasts a strong arm. Killian needs some polish behind the plate, but the ingredients of a fine defensive catcher are there. Credit the Padres for looking past his size concerns and getting themselves a promising catching talent. He should've been drafted much, much higher.


So, the sabermetric guys at BP rate Nelson the #2 high school talent and Bailey #3. Seems too close to call to me.

M2
06-10-2004, 10:32 AM
Figured I'd kick in some general post-draft thoughts now that I've had a few days to digest things. princeton's got his draft prediction in another thread. For the record, I'd have done Nelson in the first and Michael Rogers in the second. After that, all eastern Europeans. It's an undertapped talent pool.

1. Homer Bailey - The Reds went for ceiling and, at least this is my guess, were hell-bent on taking a pitcher with that first pick. Can't argue with Bailey's ceiling, but to lift a single word from guernsey's above post, this is a "treacherous" pick. The Reds have chosen try the old rope bridge, the one with the planks falling out of it. I hope they make it across. Random development thought on Bailey: After seeing Tyler Pelland get croaked in A ball this season, I'd suggest starting Bailey in the GCL and only bumping him up to Billings next season. He can hit Dayton in 2006 and still be the appropriate age for that level. I know the temptation is to rush top picks, but the Reds picked high schooler and they should show some restraint.

2. If you like B.J. Szymanski, then you should adore Wily Mo Pena ... and I'm talking poster-on-the-wall love here. "But honey, it's a five-tool poster." Of course the Reds have been showing little love for Wily Mo despite the fact that he's playing pretty well. So is everyone going to be on board with the Szymanski project?

3. Much as I didn't like the philosophy of the Bailey pick, my least favorite selection the team made was Craig Tatum. College pitchers like Steve Register, Andrew Dobies and Ross Ohlendorf were still on the board. To touch upon something I mentioned above, the only thing I look for when drafting a catcher with a high pick is his bat. If his bat warrants the selection at that spot, then I'd draft him. You can get competent catch-and throw guys in later rounds. Tatum's defense is his calling and, as such, I think they might have chosen player for whom they could have found an equivalent ten rounds later.

4. Whether you like Rafael Gonzalez depends on whether you look at his ceiling or his current wayward self. He could be dynamite or he could be out of baseball in three years. Possible alternate pick: Ohlendorf.

5. Paul Janish sounds like a Dal Maxvill clone. Clearly the Reds were impressed by the arm tool when it came to players in this draft. Possible alternate pick: Dexter Fowler, now there's some tools.

6. Unlike Mathis, Lonny Roa's bat is what got him drafted. As such, nice pick. There's speculation he may not stay behind the plate. Hope he does, the Reds could use some offensive competence back there. I'm picturing a RH Joey Votto. Possible alternate pick: Tennessee southpaw Derek Tharpe, who dominated the SEC.

7. Phillippe Valiquette is probably the poster boy for the underrated HS arm. He's a lefty with a good fastball, that alone gets me interested. Nice selection by the Reds. A real case of taking a kid who wound up being undervalued. Canada's also been producing pitchers of late. Possible alternate selection: None, Valiquette's a speculation pick, but he'll come at a good price and has a high ceiling.

8. Greg Goetz is another lefty with a good heater. Can't find the plate so the Reds will need to learn how to teach control for him to pan out.

9. Trevor Lawhorn's got some pop for a 2B, though it's speculated that it might be aluminum-based pop. He and his twin brother are baseball rats who'll play wherever you stick them and they'll do something right. Generally speaking, it's good to have some of those around. They find their ceilings with greater frequency.

10. Terrell Young is either a young man who's stumbled while waiting to do the one thing he was born to do -- pitch professional baseball -- or he's a disaster who happens to pitch. Obviously I'd like to see the former be the case. Another tools pitcher.

11. Jason Uriquidez marked the spot in the draft where the Reds shifted their pitching philosophy to taking college pitchers. Uriquidez doesn't have a lot of stuff, but he's got extra moxie. Should be a solid minor leaguer for a good number of years if nothing else.

General thoughts - Anyone who wanted the Reds to draft players with advanced hitting skills or mature pitchers, can't be enthused with this bunch. The Reds clearly went for tools, particularly defense, in the hopes they could build an offensive game around them. Likewise, they went for tools pitchers. It means they're putting a lot of eggs in the instruction basket. It's going to require a ton of patience, which Dan O'Brien seems to have, though he's put even greater pressure on himself in terms of coming up with an interim plan for the majors. This draft isn't going to impact the major league club for a long time.

Yet this marks the first real stamp the DanO regime has put on the organization and it looks like the Reds are going to be a tools-centric bunch.

backbencher
06-10-2004, 10:57 AM
After that, all eastern Europeans. It's an undertapped talent pool.

Not at Ohio State.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

lollipopcurve
06-10-2004, 11:45 AM
M2,
Excellent analysis. A couple of corollaries/extensions...

1. As others may have noted, the Reds "zagged" as many other organizations "zigged" -- Reds going HS arms, college bats. Looks to me like Szymanski and Janish may have dropped some from predraft projections due to this overall trend.

2. I think Reynolds talked of building up the middle -- looks to be a "philosophy" as much as any other pattern one could identify after 1 draft.

3. I read something about visa issues with Canadian players -- something like they'll have to sign 2005 contracts. Will impact Valiquette.

4. I'd love to see us sign 25-30 of these players.

5. The video of Juan Buck is interesting. Big and green.

6. Szymanski is an embryonic Joe Borchard. I look for him to struggle a lot at times, but still a very nice player to have in the system, I think.

jmcclain19
01-12-2005, 05:33 PM
Things look mighty different now, 6 months out from the draft...still will take a full season to fully comprehend whether or not the 2004 class was any good.