PDA

View Full Version : Why does Homer Bailey get so much criticism?



dougdirt
05-31-2006, 03:33 PM
Every start he has that isnt well gets blown up around here. Why?
Why is it when Jay Bruce goes 0-18 twice this year, no one really makes a fuss? Where they both not first round picks? Where they both not given million dollar signing bonuses? Can someone explain to me the difference?

Luvsbaseball
05-31-2006, 04:05 PM
I'm with you, I don't understand either. Everyone needs to remember he just turned 20!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lollipopcurve
05-31-2006, 04:09 PM
Every start he has that isnt well gets blown up around here. Why?
Why is it when Jay Bruce goes 0-18 twice this year, no one really makes a fuss? Where they both not first round picks? Where they both not given million dollar signing bonuses? Can someone explain to me the difference?

I think it goes back to the draft. Those who didn't like that the Reds chose a HS arm in 04 tend to point out his faults, while those of us who liked Homer's upside (not as many as were in the other camp) tend to point out his strengths.

Bruce was a much more popular selection, so he gets the RZ benefit of the doubt.

NC Reds
05-31-2006, 04:10 PM
I agree. Homer should be allowed to develop. I'm actually more concerned about the quality of coaching he gets in our system than I am about his talent.

Red Leader
05-31-2006, 04:12 PM
I think it has more to do with the fact that we NEED Homer Bailey to be a STUD a lot more than we need Jay Bruce to be one.

Some people hold Bailey to exremely lofty expectations. Some others don't think much of him at all. He's a lot like Dunn in that regard. When he doesn't perform up to expecations for some, they bicker, and go through the whole "the sky is falling" routine. Others just sit back and said "told you so," which irks the first group even more.

Me? I think Bailey has talent. I think he's going to come more slowly than a lot of people think, but he'll get there eventually. Whether he stays there for good or not, is up to him. I can't predict what a player really wants for himself, because I have no idea. The talent is definately there, though.

Red Leader
05-31-2006, 04:14 PM
I think it goes back to the draft. Those who didn't like that the Reds chose a HS arm in 04 tend to point out his faults, while those of us who liked Homer's upside (not as many as were in the other camp) tend to point out his strengths.

Bruce was a much more popular selection, so he gets the RZ benefit of the doubt.

I think this plays a role in it as well. Homer wasn't a popular draft choice by many on this site. Bruce being picked was much better received.

rdiersin
05-31-2006, 04:19 PM
I think it has more to do with the fact that we NEED Homer Bailey to be a STUD a lot more than we need Jay Bruce to be one.

Some people hold Bailey to exremely lofty expectations. Some others don't think much of him at all. He's a lot like Dunn in that regard. When he doesn't perform up to expecations for some, they bicker, and go through the whole "the sky is falling" routine. Others just sit back and said "told you so," which irks the first group even more.

Me? I think Bailey has talent. I think he's going to come more slowly than a lot of people think, but he'll get there eventually. Whether he stays there for good or not, is up to him. I can't predict what a player really wants for himself, because I have no idea. The talent is definately there, though.

To add to this, I also think some of the problem is the expectations being heaped on Bailey. People tend to think of him as the next ace or whatever and those that are bringing up points tend to say "hey, hold on a second before we start calling him that". I don't think anyone denies that he has talent, that shows up in many places whether you've seen him pitch or even looking at his secondary stats. But, the thing of it is, he hasn't dominated. That's not being negative, it simply is what it is. If we want his name mentioned along the other top prospects in the game then he has to show some sort of consistent domination. Will it happen? Who knows, I hope it does, that's for sure.

Aronchis
05-31-2006, 04:21 PM
Bailey's development has been slow, slower than expected. He looked like his development would be slow in his rookie year of 2004 and other than for 1.5 months last April/May 2005, he hasn't veered heavily from that point.

cincyinco
05-31-2006, 04:35 PM
You guys need to excersize some patience. Homer is 20 years old and has roughly 2 seasons of pro ball. A half season or less in rookie, a year in Dayton, and 2 months so far this year. he is 20 years old. I repeat, 20 years old.

I think its also important to remember that not every high profile prospect is dominant or excels right from the get go. There is something that needs to be said for scouting and projection on this board. Homer can improve, homer can make adjustments, homer can grow as a ball player. All to often I see people look at the stats and dismiss Homer Bailey. Thats flat out silly IMHO.

Is he an ace yet? No. But he projects to be. Projections can be wrong, but its an integral part in selecting a player in the draft. You take the guy with the best possible ceiling, and I argue the Reds did exactly that when they selected Homer - highschool arm or not. The guy has shown flashes of dominance, yet he's inconsistent.

Why thats surprising to anyone, that a 20 year old who's learning the nuances of the game is inconsistent, is beyond me.

traderumor
05-31-2006, 04:38 PM
1) It was O'Brien's first "statement" that nothing had changed, that the Reds FO still had no clue how to right the ship
2) I believe that draft was very heavy in college arms, some of which I believe are currently close or cracking the majors
3) The Reds needed pitching desperately, and they picked a 5-7 year project
4) The prophetic nature of the predictions from those who did not like the pick are striking (that was not me, I came to the light later) and must be pointed out for educational purposes ;)

Red Leader
05-31-2006, 04:42 PM
1) It was O'Brien's first "statement" that nothing had changed, that the Reds FO still had no clue how to right the ship
2) I believe that draft was very heavy in college arms, some of which I believe are currently close or cracking the majors
3) The Reds needed pitching desperately, and they picked a 5-7 year project
4) The prophetic nature of the predictions from those who did not like the pick are striking (that was not me, I came to the light later) and must be pointed out for educational purposes ;)

Agree on all points.

cincyinco
05-31-2006, 04:43 PM
Coulda woulda shoulda..

If Homer turns into a legit, bonafide, number one, ace starting pitcher... is he worth it?

Would you take a mid rotation starter that could help NOW over a potential ace down the line?

I dont know about you guys, but I take the ace. Every. Single. Time.

M2
05-31-2006, 04:45 PM
IMO, there's a number of reasons for the criticism:

1) He's been wildly overrated, both by people on this board and off. He doesn't work in the mid-90s like he was billed as doing, he doesn't have anywhere near the control he was projected as having. Supposedly he was a stud when he got drafted and for two years he's failed to deliver on that hype. I've seen stud pitchers come out of the prep ranks, not for the Reds so much, and Homer Bailey's not even a vague imitation of a real stud prospect pitcher. He's got some talent that he hasn't been able to translate effectively. I'm not even sure if it's "big" talent or that his absolute ceiling isn't a #3 starter.

I would think that even his biggest supporters would recognize how immensely frustrating he's been.

2) He was exactly what the Reds didn't need in the 2004 draft. The club lacked advanced pitching prospects and quality pitchers in the majors. Previous HS golden boy arms had washed out on the organization. The Reds needed to find a more advanced stud if they were going to take a pitcher. Jered Weaver was there (and it turns out the Reds had the money for his bonus and instead gave it to Eric Milton). Thomas Diamond was there and, after a rough first few outings this season, he's tearing a hole in the Texas League. Looks like he'll be up in the majors to stay at some point in 2007. Bailey's still looking like 2009 or beyond if he ever puts himself together.

3) It was one of the worst scouting directors in history working for as inept a GM as you'll ever see who picked him. Terry Reynolds destroyed the Dodgers farm system that Branch Rickey built. That's practically a prisonable offense. Dan O'Brien proved time and again that he couldn't spot a talented pitcher to save his life (or his job for that matter). So we know Homer had hype. Lots of kids get hyped. But whose judgment is it we're really trusting here that Homer Bailey is the prep arm who'll beat the long odds against him and become the kind of pitcher that justifies the team's massive investment in him? Why it's really still the judgment of Reynolds and O'Brien. If that doesn't make you the least little bit nauseous then I don't know what will.

I don't mind that the Reds have Bailey. I look at him as an asset. Ideally I'd like to see the team move him in a package for an established major league pitcher because I'm not enamored with his results so far and years of mystery and peril between now and the point where he might reasonably be ready to pitch well in the majors does nothing for me. I'd much rather have a bird in the hand.

rdiersin
05-31-2006, 04:47 PM
You take the guy with the best possible ceiling, and I argue the Reds did exactly that when they selected Homer - highschool arm or not.

Do you? I don't know about that, I think there is a lot to drafting the guy who you think will reach his ceiling. Its not so cut and dry IMO, there are two aspects: the highest ceiling and who will make it there, and a delicate balance to play.

Aronchis
05-31-2006, 04:49 PM
IMO, there's a number of reasons for the criticism:

1) He's been wildly overrated, both by people on this board and off. He doesn't work in the mid-90s like he was billed as doing, he doesn't have anywhere near the control he was projected as having. Supposedly he was a stud when he got drafted and for two years he's failed to deliver on that hype. I've seen stud pitchers come out of the prep ranks, not for the Reds so much, and Homer Bailey's not even a vague imitation of a real stud prospect pitcher. He's got some talent that he hasn't been able to translate effectively. I'm not even sure if it's "big" talent or that his absolute ceiling isn't a #3 starter.

I would think that even his biggest supporters would recognize how immensely frustrating he's been.

2) He was exactly what the Reds didn't need in the 2004 draft. The club lacked advanced pitching prospects and quality pitchers in the majors. Previous HS golden boy arms had washed out on the organization. The Reds needed to find a more advanced stud if they were going to take a pitcher. Jered Weaver was there (and it turns out the Reds had the money for his bonus and instead gave it to Eric Milton). Thomas Diamond was there and, after a rough first few outings this season, he's tearing a hole in the Texas League. Looks like he'll be up in the majors to stay at some point in 2007. Bailey's still looking like 2009 or beyond if he ever puts himself together.

3) It was one of the worst scouting directors in history working for as inept a GM as you'll ever see who picked him. Terry Reynolds destroyed the Dodgers farm system that Branch Rickey built. That's practically a prisonable offense. Dan O'Brien proved time and again that he couldn't spot a talented pitcher to save his life (or his job for that matter). So we know Homer had hype. Lots of kids get hyped. But whose judgment is it we're really trusting here that Homer Bailey is the prep arm who'll beat the long odds against him and become the kind of pitcher that justifies the team's massive investment in him? Why it's really still the judgment of Reynolds and O'Brien. If that doesn't make you the least little bit nauseous then I don't know what will.

I don't mind that the Reds have Bailey. I look at him as an asset. Ideally I'd like to see the team move him in a package for an established major league pitcher because I'm not enamored with his results so far and years of mystery and peril between now and the point where he might reasonably be ready to pitch well in the majors does nothing for me. I'd much rather have a bird in the hand.

He does work in the Mid-90's. During his HS days, he was pretty much 92-94 most of the time. Now he is about 92-95, good days he will hit 96-97.

cincyinco
05-31-2006, 04:51 PM
Do you? I don't know about that, I think there is a lot to drafting the guy who you think will reach his ceiling. Its not so cut and dry IMO, there are two aspects: the highest ceiling and who will make it there, and a delicate balance to play.

I would argue that if you think a guy has a high ceiling, then you also think he'll reach it.. otherwise, why would you think he has that high a ceiling to begin with?

I realize this is all draft philosphies, philisophical questions... and can be answered in a lot of different ways..

I really don't want to get into the debate again, because if you want to read it just do a search - its been hashed and rehashed way too many times. But I do believe the Reds selected what they believed to be the guy with the highest ceiling left on the board. They may have been wrong. We'll see.

cincyinco
05-31-2006, 04:53 PM
He does work in the Mid-90's. During his HS days, he was pretty much 92-94 most of the time. Now he is about 92-95, good days he will hit 96-97.

Plus, the kids only 20.. I'm sure he's still growing and filling out. I bet he can put another notch or two on the fastball in another year or so..

I love stats like the rest of you guys, but I also like scouting and projection. I think that gets lost a bit here on redszone.

M2
05-31-2006, 04:54 PM
He does work in the Mid-90's. During his HS days, he was pretty much 92-94 most of the time. Now he is about 92-95, good days he will hit 96-97.

From what I'm understanding he's not touching 94+ all that often. If so, then that's low 90s.

Aronchis
05-31-2006, 04:59 PM
From what I'm understanding he's not touching 94+ all that often. If so, then that's low 90s.

That is not what I have read.

traderumor
05-31-2006, 05:00 PM
Plus, the kids only 20.. I'm sure he's still growing and filling out. I bet he can put another notch or two on the fastball in another year or so..

I love stats like the rest of you guys, but I also like scouting and projection. I think that gets lost a bit here on redszone.Again, you're making arguments for the other side. Yep, he's only 20. Drafted three years ago and now the ripe age of 20. Meanwhile, our rotation is still below average, and is slowly sliding into the abyss yet again this season.

As for scouting, if someone could really project an 18 year old HS arm and it was anymore than chance in operation that any have a significant career in the bigs, then I would pay the guy a king's ransom, which I would still come out ahead in the bonus money saved from not signing the Ty Howington's, Chris Gruler's, and Homer Bailey's that are out there. Of course, a start would be simply staying away from high 1st round HS pitchers. Just say no.

M2
05-31-2006, 05:02 PM
Plus, the kids only 20.. I'm sure he's still growing and filling out. I bet he can put another notch or two on the fastball in another year or so..

I love stats like the rest of you guys, but I also like scouting and projection. I think that gets lost a bit here on redszone.

Here's the thing, he may have already lost some juice off of what he had in HS. May not have, perhaps his prep velo was exaggerated. Yet it's not uncommon for kids who throw real hard at 18 to lose velo as they get older, particularly if said kid has been in the habit of snapping off a lot of curveballs. Their arms get abused at too young an age and they backslide instead of progress.

Homer's clean delivery also makes it unlikely he'll pick up much due to a pitching adjustment. Is he going to fill out? Was he an early bloomer? Is it reasonable to expect a lot of progression with this kid? I don't know that there's many pat answers with this kid. I understand that comes with the territory on a 20 year-old pitcher, but that's a big reason why I never much liked the territory to begin with.

cincyinco
05-31-2006, 05:29 PM
traderumor and m2, I dont want to get into taking a HS pitcher vs college pitcher.. i understand the argument - you've given me evidence showing why its not a good idea, and i've shown you evidence saying its completely overstated. Believe what you will. I dont want to get into this though, thats not what this thread is about - and if you really want to discuss it, go dig up the ol thread from reds live... heh.

I'm just saying I think a lot of people on redszone expect way too much from a 20 year old kid still learning how to pitch against tough competition. I know I personally don't expect Bailey to be dominant every start out. I know I believe that Homer will have rough starts, sometimes back to back. I know I believe that not every prospect follows the same development curve. Some get it real quick, others take a while to figure "it" and themselves out. I also know that at 20 years old I was a real lanky kid, and when I hit 23/24 I really filled out. I got a spare tire around my waste these days :) heheh.

Homer is a question mark, certainly. I won't dispute that. But I think everyone gets way too emotional and worked up when discussing Homer's lack of dominance. He's twenty years old. Man, what I would do to be 20 years old again... I thought I knew everything, but I didn't know jack. I bet Homer is learning he has a lot of learning and growing up to do.

I'm not talking about his chances of getting injured. I'm not talking about HS vs College pitchers in round 1. Thats not this thread. And this is the last I will mention it. I'm talking about the flack Homer gets around here. I think a lot of it is completely overstated and overblown. Expectations are way too lofty right now. Patience is the key. Homer might flame out or he may become serviceable - we'll see. But I think he's getting dogged excessively because fans here place weighted expectations on him. And I dont think thats the right thing to do when looking at a 20 year old pitching prospect.

Not everyone is king felix. Crap, look at Ryan Nolan's development curve.

You just can't tell how a kid is going to develope. You can project what he might turn into(even if you end up being wrong), but you can't project the development path a prospect will take. Its just not possible. You can't predict if he will suffer an injury or not(howington, gruler, etc). And its not fair IMO to throw those names into the mix when talking about Homer. Homer has to be weighed by himself. Its inconceivable to me to weigh him with the guys like Howington and Gruler. The only thing they have in common is they were HS arms. That doesn't mean Homer is going to get hurt or fail like the rest of him. Are the odds against him? Yes, sure. Can he beat those odds? Its possible. You and I dont know. We just dont know.

So my point is, lets sit back, relax, and watch him develope into hopefully, sometihng special that many scouts all over MLB projected him to be.

gonelong
05-31-2006, 05:40 PM
I'm just saying I think a lot of people on redszone expect way too much from a 20 year old kid still learning how to pitch against tough competition.

I think the problem is that we don't expect much of anything from him, really.

But if people are going to bill him as a possbile Ace, there is no harm in seeing what those before him have done and comparing him to them. At this point he doesn't measure up to MLB "Ace" potential IMO.

I have seen him pitch a few times at Dayton, one time when he was dominant. I have seen what he could become, but weigh the probability of it at the same time.

Nobody on the "Home doesn't project to be an Ace, yet" crowd is any less relaxed then you are. Nobody is saying Homer has to do X,Y, & Z. They are saying that many Ace level pitchers did do X, Y, & Z at that stage.

GL

flyer85
05-31-2006, 05:40 PM
The Reds could have had Jered Weaver who looks like he could be helping right now. Homer is still a LONG way from the majors. Homer is progressing but he shouldn't be rushed unless and should be allowed to develop at his own pace. A HS pitcher is simply a somewhat higher risk(as the college pitcher may have gone through the injury nexus) and more of a long term project

wolfboy
05-31-2006, 05:40 PM
Coulda woulda shoulda..

If Homer turns into a legit, bonafide, number one, ace starting pitcher... is he worth it?

Would you take a mid rotation starter that could help NOW over a potential ace down the line?

I dont know about you guys, but I take the ace. Every. Single. Time.

If we're talking about a club with a healthy minor league system, the answer is yes. The Reds aren't in that situation, so taking a gamble on a guy like Bailey didn't make sense at the time. If you are living from paycheck to paycheck and have little money to save, you don't want to lay your rent money down at the roulette table. You might be the luckiest guy alive, but chances are you won't improve your lot in life. Either way, it's never a sound investment.

I still have hopes that Bailey can become a solid major league pitcher. I certaintly don't expect it, but I am hopeful. At the time he was drafted, the Reds would have been better off taking a college arm that wouldn't have been such a gamble, and could have shown more immediate results at the ML level.

cincyinco
05-31-2006, 05:42 PM
I think the problem is that we don't expect much of anything from him, really.

But if people are going to bill him as a possbile Ace, there is no harm in seeing what those before him have done and comparing him to them. At this point he doesn't measure up to MLB "Ace" potential IMO.

GL

If you don't expect much from him, then why care? Why don't you treat him along the same lines as say... Avery who we drafted last year?

Simply because he was a 1st round pick?

He was a Dan'O pick, and if you're not impressed and don't expect much, then move on, and don't let Homer bother ya. Put it and the whole Dan'O experience(heh.. sounds like a psychadelic band name.. THE DANO EXPIERIENCE!@!@#@) behind you. I know the Reds have.

Perhaps its just me, but my impression from being on this board for as long as I have, is that Homer gets a lot of flack. Some of it deserved, but some of it is just overboard.

Frankie says relax...

cincyinco
05-31-2006, 05:44 PM
The Reds could have had Jered Weaver who looks like he could be helping right now. Homer is still a LONG way from the majors. Homer is progressing but he shouldn't be rushed unless and should be allowed to develop at his own pace. A HS pitcher is simply a somewhat higher risk(as the college pitcher may have gone through the injury nexus) and more of a long term project

This goes back to the age ol' question. Do you take an ace who's 3-5 years away, or a mid rotation guy who is 1-2 years away?

PS - there are many scouts who believe Jared Weaver is nothing more than a mid rotation starter.

flyer85
05-31-2006, 05:48 PM
This goes back to the age ol' question. Do you take an ace who's 3-5 years away, or a mid rotation guy who is 1-2 years away?

PS - there are many scouts who believe Jared Weaver is nothing more than a mid rotation starter.The difference between "what is" and "what could be". A middle of the rotation starter would look pretty good right now when compared to a guy who IF he does turn into that that #1 starter it likely won't be for 4-5 years.

I would agree that Bailey probably has more upside potential but the farther away from the majors the harder the projection is.

cincyinco
05-31-2006, 05:57 PM
If we're talking about a club with a healthy minor league system, the answer is yes. The Reds aren't in that situation, so taking a gamble on a guy like Bailey didn't make sense at the time. If you are living from paycheck to paycheck and have little money to save, you don't want to lay your rent money down at the roulette table. You might be the luckiest guy alive, but chances are you won't improve your lot in life. Either way, it's never a sound investment.

I still have hopes that Bailey can become a solid major league pitcher. I certaintly don't expect it, but I am hopeful. At the time he was drafted, the Reds would have been better off taking a college arm that wouldn't have been such a gamble, and could have shown more immediate results at the ML level.

Excellent points wolfboy, and I agree with most of them. However, as I said earlier, this goes back to draft philosphy, of which, there are many different answers. Look around baseball. Do the Braves stop taking HS arms becuase they're HS arms? No, and they have a helluva solid farm system last I checked.

My personal philosphy regarding the draft, is you take the best available talent, period. Positional or pitcher. College or highschool. The Reds are not in a position to be drafting according to need. And at the time, I would still argue, they drafted the best available talent at their position.

But you used living paycheck to paycheck as an example.

Well, I've lived that life, and let me tell you it sucks. But I dont view the Reds situation as living paycheck to paycheck. I view prospects as commodities, i.e. stocks. I look for long term value in my investment. I don't look for short gains or immediete returns. That said, I believe Homer is the long term return, not the immediete gain. And I dont think there is anything wrong with that.

Now, if you want to argue diversity among the Reds investments, you might be on to something. Diversifying your investments is a sound strategy. And if you look, Obrien did draft heavily on college pitchers last year. Sounds strategy IMO. Lets keep the farm diversified. And although its bottom loaded now, in another year, I think we'll start seeing some of those investements starting to poke their heads up in the AA level and beyond. In 2007/2008, things could get interesting, especially now that Krivsky's at the helm.

I'm done talking what the Reds should have drafted. I don't care about what they should have done. I care about what they did. And I'll argue the merits all day long that it wasn't as bad a choice as everyone believes. But, I'll just point to a thread(s) that have had this discussion many times over. I know what I believe. I know the evidence I've looked at. I know I've read evidence saying that HS arms drafted in round 1 are bad, Mkay.. I know I've also read evidence stating that this is completely overstated. I know the conclusions I've come to regarding my preference when I look around minor league baseball(which I follow extensively all the way down to rookie ball). I know to me, how far off a player is generally doesn't matter, as long as the reward is reached. The reds have failed miserably in this aspect for decades. Lets hope they turn it around.

Been fun discussing with ya boys, but I'm done. This debate is as tired as rip van winkle. And I need to run to the bank.

I hope everyone can respect my opinion. Please understand its not just baseless, and I've researched and formed my opinion based on the last 5 years of tireless research and searching for gems throughout the minor leagues in all organizations for my own reasons. I love minor league ball and prospects more than the normal guy. And I know what I've seen with my own eyes. My own perceptions. So please don't disprespect me for it. I don't discount your evidence or opinions, please understand that. I just battle the other side because I believe it gets dissmissed and thrown to the way side way to often and easily.

M2
05-31-2006, 06:00 PM
i've shown you evidence saying its completely overstated.

I went through every draft of the 1990s, looked at the first 15 picks (and studies that conflate the first two or three rounds are worthless, IMO, because they're missing some clear fault lines and failing to differentiate between different levels of risk and investment) and teams that drafted prep arms who weren't the consensus overall best pitcher available went 1 for 26 in terms of getting any sort of ROI on that pick ... and the one was Chris Carpenter with the Blue Jays. That's not an overstatement. That's what happened.

I've glossed over all the drafts from the 80s as well and the odds don't look any better. In fact, it would really all come down to whether Doc Gooden was the best overall pitcher available in 1982 (if you read "Dollar Sign on the Muscle" it's clear that a good number of folks were convinced he was).


I'm just saying I think a lot of people on redszone expect way too much from a 20 year old kid still learning how to pitch against tough competition.

I expect a prep arm taken #7 in the draft to be able to come in and do a little something. Plenty of prep pitchers from Bailey's class have done just fine in Low A last year and in High A this year. If this kid were worth the investment then I don't think it's much to ask that he be able to keep his ERA well below 4.00. That's hardly an unreasonably high expectation. Guys like Eric Hurley and Scott Elbert have run laps around him so far.


You just can't tell how a kid is going to develope. You can project what he might turn into(even if you end up being wrong), but you can't project the development path a prospect will take. Its just not possible. You can't predict if he will suffer an injury or not(howington, gruler, etc). And its not fair IMO to throw those names into the mix when talking about Homer. Homer has to be weighed by himself. Its not fair to weigh him with the guys like Howington and Gruler, simply because he was a HS pick.

That's sort of my point too. You never could tell how Homer was going to develop. No one since they started holding drafts in 1965 has been able to pinpoint the top prep arms with any sort of accuracy. In fact, it's been near complete inaccuracy. So I think it is fair to compare Bailey to guys like Howington and Gruler because those other two put into perspective the massive odds Bailey still faces. Homer hasn't been a standout. He hasn't established himself as different from all those other highly-regarded HS arms who fizzled before him. That's the problem. If you were inclined to be suspicious about Bailey and question how special he really is, he's done nothing but confirm those suspicions for the past two years.

I understand the counterargument that someday he might be and that he's given some indications that could be the case, but that's a lot of "might" and "could be." And, again, we're still tied to the opinions of Terry Reynolds and Dan O'Brien on a lot of that. Those are the guys who invested in this kid. If Reynolds and O'Brien was a Wall St. investment firm, given their track records, would you be handing your money over to them?

I would not. So while I agree that it you're looking at probably at least four years before Homer Bailey's "mights" and "could bes" materialize at a major league level and that, obviously, it will require patience for that scenario to play out, I also recognize the Reds might not have to wait. Like I said, mystery and peril isn't the only road here. Homer's got a market well out of line with how well he's performed to date. Back to the investment analogy, what would you do if you owned a stock whose value was inflated well above the company performance?

What I really care about, is the Reds get a big talent return on that investment and I'm not all that particular that it be named Homer Bailey.

cincyinco
05-31-2006, 06:01 PM
The difference between "what is" and "what could be". A middle of the rotation starter would look pretty good right now when compared to a guy who IF he does turn into that that #1 starter it likely won't be for 4-5 years.

I would agree that Bailey probably has more upside potential but the farther away from the majors the harder the projection is.

Good points. I particularly agree with the second statement. Projection is defenitely not fullproof. Scouts miss it all the time, but they also get it right.

But, although a middle of the rotation starter would look good right now for a pitching starved team like the Reds, I think you always draft the best on the board, not for need. I think the Reds did that.

kaldaniels
05-31-2006, 06:17 PM
I went through every draft of the 1990s, looked at the first 15 picks (and studies that conflate the first two or three rounds are worthless, IMO, because they're missing some clear fault lines and failing to differentiate between different levels of risk and investment) and teams that drafted prep arms who weren't the consensus overall best pitcher available went 1 for 26 in terms of getting any sort of ROI on that pick ... and the one was Chris Carpenter with the Blue Jays. That's not an overstatement. That's what happened.
I've glossed over all the drafts from the 80s as well and the odds don't look any better. In fact, it would really all come down to whether Doc Gooden was the best overall pitcher available in 1982 (if you read "Dollar Sign on the Muscle" it's clear that a good number of folks were convinced he was).



I expect a prep arm taken #7 in the draft to be able to come in and do a little something. Plenty of prep pitchers from Bailey's class have done just fine in Low A last year and in High A this year. If this kid were worth the investment then I don't think it's much to ask that he be able to keep his ERA well below 4.00. That's hardly an unreasonably high expectation. Guys like Eric Hurley and Scott Elbert have run laps around him so far.



That's sort of my point too. You never could tell how Homer was going to develop. No one since they started holding drafts in 1965 has been able to pinpoint the top prep arms with any sort of accuracy. In fact, it's been near complete inaccuracy. So I think it is fair to compare Bailey to guys like Howington and Gruler because those other two put into perspective the massive odds Bailey still faces. Homer hasn't been a standout. He hasn't established himself as different from all those other highly-regarded HS arms who fizzled before him. That's the problem. If you were inclined to be suspicious about Bailey and question how special he really is, he's done nothing but confirm those suspicions for the past two years.

I understand the counterargument that someday he might be and that he's given some indications that could be the case, but that's a lot of "might" and "could be." And, again, we're still tied to the opinions of Terry Reynolds and Dan O'Brien on a lot of that. Those are the guys who invested in this kid. If Reynolds and O'Brien was a Wall St. investment firm, given their track records, would you be handing your money over to them?

I would not. So while I agree that it you're looking at probably at least four years before Homer Bailey's "mights" and "could bes" materialize at a major league level and that, obviously, it will require patience for that scenario to play out, I also recognize the Reds might not have to wait. Like I said, mystery and peril isn't the only road here. Homer's got a market well out of line with how well he's performed to date. Back to the investment analogy, what would you do if you owned a stock whose value was inflated well above the company performance?

What I really care about, is the Reds get a big talent return on that investment and I'm not all that particular that it be named Homer Bailey.

What about 1996 John Patterson drafted #5 by the Expos, 4th pitcher selected...out of Orange, TX. Or are you saying he was the consensus #1 - I don't know. I was just curious about your claim and pulled up one draft '96 to see about it and thats what I found. I like Patterson, and would say he turned out decent. Thoughts?

M2
05-31-2006, 06:22 PM
What about 1996 John Patterson drafted #5 by the Expos, 4th pitcher selected...out of Orange, TX. Or are you saying he was the consensus #1 - I don't know. I was just curious about your claim and pulled up one draft '96 to see about it and thats what I found. I like Patterson, and would say he turned out decent. Thoughts?

Patterson delivered nothing to team that drafted him (which I actually counted as the D-Backs, since he used a loophole to sign with them).

That's part of the ROI danger on prep arms, there are a small number who work out later, but it's after they've moved onto another organization (and oddly no one was trading any of these kids for any significant return). Obviously, that's a cold comfort to the team that draft the kid, spending millions of dollars and multiple years trying to develop him.

BRM
05-31-2006, 06:22 PM
I don't know what happened but he apparently never pitched in the Expos system. From Baseball Reference:


June 4, 1996: Drafted by the Montreal Expos in the 1st round (5th pick) of the 1996 amateur draft.

October 24, 1996: Granted Free Agency.

November 7, 1996: Signed as a Free Agent with the Arizona Diamondbacks.

BRM
05-31-2006, 06:23 PM
M2,

Do you know the story behind that draft with Patterson and the Expos?

M2
05-31-2006, 06:26 PM
M2,

Do you know the story behind that draft with Patterson and the Expos?

There was a perfunctory offer deadline that teams had gotten out of the habit of meeting that Scott Boras seized upon and got free agency granted to Patterson, Travis Lee, Matt White and Bobby Seay, ultimately milking the D-Backs and D-Rays (who each signed two of the kids hoping to jumpstart their franchises) for millions in the process.

kaldaniels
05-31-2006, 06:30 PM
Patterson delivered nothing to team that drafted him (which I actually counted as the D-Backs, since he used a loophole to sign with them).

That's part of the ROI danger on prep arms, there are a small number who work out later, but it's after they've moved onto another organization (and oddly no one was trading any of these kids for any significant return).

However, here would be my argument on ROI...glance thru the drafts of the 90's...look at say the first 5 picks of each draft (or more...it won't matter) on average you are looking at best, an average major league ball player, and in my opinion that's pushing it. And of course we've had the top 5 in some drafts be all studs, but some have been all busts. Point being...if the market average ROI is an average major leaguer...why not go for the ace out of high school IF you've done your homework on the guy...You've obviously looked at alot of drafts in discussing in this thread and I've sure you've been amazed at the names you've seen. (For one, Paul Wilson #1 and CJ Nitkoski #9 in the same draft). I haven't counted but I'd say this statement is accurate, or very close A pitcher drafted in the 1st round probably won't pan out to expectations, regardless of where he comes from. So, I'd give you that odds favor those coming out of college, but really chances are neither will turn out and you just have to hope you've done your research right and picked the right guy.

BRM
05-31-2006, 06:31 PM
There was a perfunctory offer deadline that teams had gotten out of the habit of meeting that Scott Boras seized upon and got free agency granted to Patterson, Travis Lee, Matt White and Bobby Seay, ultimately milking the D-Backs and D-Rays (who each signed two of the kids hoping to jumpstart their franchises) for millions in the process.

I assume the rules have changed since then?

flyer85
05-31-2006, 06:48 PM
I assume the rules have changed since then?Nope, teams just make sure they provide a written offer within the first 15 days

dougdirt
05-31-2006, 06:57 PM
1) It was O'Brien's first "statement" that nothing had changed, that the Reds FO still had no clue how to right the ship
2) I believe that draft was very heavy in college arms, some of which I believe are currently close or cracking the majors
3) The Reds needed pitching desperately, and they picked a 5-7 year project
4) The prophetic nature of the predictions from those who did not like the pick are striking (that was not me, I came to the light later) and must be pointed out for educational purposes ;)
1. What did him drafting Bailey have to do with the fact that nothing had changed?
2. Just becuase it was heavy in college arms has nothing to do with the Reds scouts thinking Bailey was the best player available at the time of the draft.
3. Drafting based on what you need is a very stupid idea, especially in baseball where the odds of your first round pick are much much lower of a success rate than in any other sport.
4. If you are referring to the HS vs College pitchers, the numbers are nowhere near as bad as you were probably led to believe. Especially over more recent history as opposed to 1990-1996.


IMO, there's a number of reasons for the criticism:

1) He's been wildly overrated, both by people on this board and off. He doesn't work in the mid-90s like he was billed as doing, he doesn't have anywhere near the control he was projected as having. Supposedly he was a stud when he got drafted and for two years he's failed to deliver on that hype. I've seen stud pitchers come out of the prep ranks, not for the Reds so much, and Homer Bailey's not even a vague imitation of a real stud prospect pitcher. He's got some talent that he hasn't been able to translate effectively. I'm not even sure if it's "big" talent or that his absolute ceiling isn't a #3 starter.

I would think that even his biggest supporters would recognize how immensely frustrating he's been. Where are you seeing he doesnt work in the mid 90s? Everything I have seen/heard/read says the exact opposite. The control thing is a slight problem, but it is very correctable. As for failing to deliver on the hype....I think you expect way to much from him at the age of 20 and less than a month. He is striking out over 10 per 9 innings, allowing just 7.14 hits per 9....I am not sure that is failing, and if it is well then like I said you expect way to much. Like you said, hes got some talent. He has yet to be able to harness it all in at the age of 20. The thing is, he has on some nights and that should be a sign that he will with time become more and more consistant with it.



2) He was exactly what the Reds didn't need in the 2004 draft. The club lacked advanced pitching prospects and quality pitchers in the majors. Previous HS golden boy arms had washed out on the organization. The Reds needed to find a more advanced stud if they were going to take a pitcher. Jered Weaver was there (and it turns out the Reds had the money for his bonus and instead gave it to Eric Milton). Thomas Diamond was there and, after a rough first few outings this season, he's tearing a hole in the Texas League. Looks like he'll be up in the majors to stay at some point in 2007. Bailey's still looking like 2009 or beyond if he ever puts himself together.

The Reds didnt need to draft the player they thought was the best available talent because they needed a guy to jump in and pitch in Sarasota in 2004? You know how many first round players have made the major leagues as of the end of last year? 3. Justin Verlander, Huston Street and JP Howell. Thats it. Of all those college arms available that I know you wanted to badly, unless you took Verlander you are at the same exact spot as everyone else is with Bailey....waiting for your 2004 draft pick to help out your team.


3) It was one of the worst scouting directors in history working for as inept a GM as you'll ever see who picked him. Terry Reynolds destroyed the Dodgers farm system that Branch Rickey built. That's practically a prisonable offense. Dan O'Brien proved time and again that he couldn't spot a talented pitcher to save his life (or his job for that matter). So we know Homer had hype. Lots of kids get hyped. But whose judgment is it we're really trusting here that Homer Bailey is the prep arm who'll beat the long odds against him and become the kind of pitcher that justifies the team's massive investment in him? Why it's really still the judgment of Reynolds and O'Brien. If that doesn't make you the least little bit nauseous then I don't know what will.
The fact that you are down on a guy just because two people you dislike drafted him says that you are down on him for the wrong reason M2.


Again, you're making arguments for the other side. Yep, he's only 20. Drafted three years ago and now the ripe age of 20. Meanwhile, our rotation is still below average, and is slowly sliding into the abyss yet again this season.

As for scouting, if someone could really project an 18 year old HS arm and it was anymore than chance in operation that any have a significant career in the bigs, then I would pay the guy a king's ransom, which I would still come out ahead in the bonus money saved from not signing the Ty Howington's, Chris Gruler's, and Homer Bailey's that are out there. Of course, a start would be simply staying away from high 1st round HS pitchers. Just say no.
Homer was drafted 2 years ago, not 3. Again, like I said earlier, unless you took Justin Verlander in the 2004 draft, you are still waiting for that draft pick to help you at the major league level in your rotation.
I dont see the problem, especially these days with high school pitchers instead of college pitchers. Many high school drafted pitchers, especially more recently have come on and done perfectly fine as starting pitchers.


If we're talking about a club with a healthy minor league system, the answer is yes. The Reds aren't in that situation, so taking a gamble on a guy like Bailey didn't make sense at the time. If you are living from paycheck to paycheck and have little money to save, you don't want to lay your rent money down at the roulette table. You might be the luckiest guy alive, but chances are you won't improve your lot in life. Either way, it's never a sound investment.

I still have hopes that Bailey can become a solid major league pitcher. I certaintly don't expect it, but I am hopeful. At the time he was drafted, the Reds would have been better off taking a college arm that wouldn't have been such a gamble, and could have shown more immediate results at the ML level.
Taking a gamble is again, something I dont understand...how is it a gamble to take the guy you think is the best guy available? Simply because he is a HS pitcher is a silly arguement. Again, the first round 2004 draft has 1 starting pitcher in the majors right now who has shown the ability to be good....and he has about 15-20 starts under his belt right now in Justin Verlander. No one is showing any immediate results except the Tigers and the A's (Huston Street). Only 3 players, all pitchers have even made their ML Debut as of the end of last season from that draft.

M2
05-31-2006, 07:09 PM
However, here would be my argument on ROI...glance thru the drafts of the 90's...look at say the first 5 picks of each draft (or more...it won't matter) on average you are looking at best, an average major league ball player, and in my opinion that's pushing it. And of course we've had the top 5 in some drafts be all studs, but some have been all busts. Point being...if the market average ROI is an average major leaguer...why not go for the ace out of high school IF you've done your homework on the guy...You've obviously looked at alot of drafts in discussing in this thread and I've sure you've been amazed at the names you've seen. (For one, Paul Wilson #1 and CJ Nitkoski #9 in the same draft). I haven't counted but I'd say this statement is accurate, or very close A pitcher drafted in the 1st round probably won't pan out to expectations, regardless of where he comes from. So, I'd give you that odds favor those coming out of college, but really chances are neither will turn out and you just have to hope you've done your research right and picked the right guy.

Because no one's ever shown they CAN do that research when it comes to prep arms. A lot of people have had the idea you've laid out and they always blow it. My view is, let the other guy convince himself he's smarter than he is and blow it. That'll improve my odds on the better ROI picks. After 15 picks, the odds begin to normalize (because teams do a decent job of pinpointing the top college arms, college players and prep players and they go off the board after the top of the first round). It's still no sure thing, but the odds are a heck of a lot better than 1 in 26 with the one being a really blah return.

Plus, you don't want to be spending top 10 money for late first round or later odds. You're paying a premium there and the reason why is because there are better ROIs available.

Now if you've got a Josh Beckett that's fallen into your lap, take him. Don't think twice about it. He's part of the reasonably successful subset of highly-drafted prep arms. Homer Bailey, however, never belonged in Beckett's class.

M2
05-31-2006, 07:21 PM
Where are you seeing he doesnt work in the mid 90s? Everything I have seen/heard/read says the exact opposite. The control thing is a slight problem, but it is very correctable. As for failing to deliver on the hype....I think you expect way to much from him at the age of 20 and less than a month. He is striking out over 10 per 9 innings, allowing just 7.14 hits per 9....I am not sure that is failing, and if it is well then like I said you expect way to much. Like you said, hes got some talent. He has yet to be able to harness it all in at the age of 20. The thing is, he has on some nights and that should be a sign that he will with time become more and more consistant with it.

The guy I know who went to the game last night and saw the gun readings confirmed it for me. According to the scouts there, Bailey's working low 90s, rarely touching 95. Just as an aside, radar gun readings, particularly in published reports, tend to reflect more than a little bit of inflation.


The Reds didnt need to draft the player they thought was the best available talent because they needed a guy to jump in and pitch in Sarasota in 2004? You know how many first round players have made the major leagues as of the end of last year? 3. Justin Verlander, Huston Street and JP Howell. Thats it. Of all those college arms available that I know you wanted to badly, unless you took Verlander you are at the same exact spot as everyone else is with Bailey....waiting for your 2004 draft pick to help out your team.

A) No one independent body had Bailey rated as the best available talent when the Reds picked. BA had him rated as the 4th-best at that time.

B) You're once again putting faith and credit in the talent estimation of Terry Reynolds and Dan O'Brien. I can't see where that's a good idea.

C) The Reds needed someone who could join the rotation as a quality starter before the end of the decade and Homer Bailey's showing no indication that he possesses such ability. Weaver's arrived in the majors. Diamond's now chewing up one of the toughest hitter's leagues in the minors.


The fact that you are down on a guy just because two people you dislike drafted him says that you are down on him for the wrong reason M2.

I don't dislike Reynolds or O'Brien. They might be wonderful guys. As talent evaluators however they've proven themselves incompetent. What I'm not doing is substituting their judgment for what a reasonable expectation for him is.

gonelong
06-01-2006, 10:33 AM
If you don't expect much from him, then why care? Why don't you treat him along the same lines as say... Avery who we drafted last year?

I care because I care about the Reds and would like to see them do well. I care because I attend Dragons games (where I do expect things from Homer). I just don't expect that he will make a large impact at the MLB level due to the attrition level of highly drafted Prep arms.

I also care about Avery, but Avery also relfects much less lost opportunity cost if he does not do well.


Simply because he was a 1st round pick?

Yes. That is the best chance you have at getting an impact player. Use it to the utmost advantage.



He was a Dan'O pick, and if you're not impressed and don't expect much, then move on, and don't let Homer bother ya. Put it and the whole Dan'O experience(heh.. sounds like a psychadelic band name.. THE DANO EXPIERIENCE!@!@#@) behind you. I know the Reds have.

I think I'll stick around, thank you. I have seen Homer pitch 3 times in person. Once he was shelled, once he was pretty decent, and once he was dominating. You can see that he has some tools. Homer doesn't bother me a bit. Here is a post of mine after the first game I had a chance to see him in person. Link (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=809183&postcount=12)



Perhaps its just me, but my impression from being on this board for as long as I have, is that Homer gets a lot of flack. Some of it deserved, but some of it is just overboard.

Well, then I think you are getting quite the wrong impression. Homer himself doesn't get the flack. He is what he is. The DRAFT PICK of Homer and the claims that Homer is a likely ACE in waiting, that's what is catching flack.



Frankie says relax...

If I was any more relaxed I'd slide right off my chair. :)

GL

tbball10
06-01-2006, 11:27 AM
only 1 pitcher (verlander) from the '04 class is in the majors, correct? and he was gone when we took homer. i'm sure we would have taken him if he dropped to the 7th pick, but he didn't, and besides verlander and sowers, i think bailey is the best pitcher from that draft. maybe he will be better than both of them, we will just have to wait and see.

dougdirt
06-01-2006, 12:32 PM
Verlander and now Jared Weaver are in the majors from that draft. Weaver of course has one start in the majors.

traderumor
06-01-2006, 12:55 PM
doug,

just to be clear, homer is in his third season since being drafted. He was drafted in 2004 (season 1), pitched a bit, then was shut down. Last year was his first full season (season 2). This year is his second full season, so that's why I said it's been "three years." And, he still seems to be at least two more seasons away if the Reds are agressive, 3-4 more if they don't rush him. Report back how many of the 1st rd. college pitchers have hit the majors in that timeframe and explain why a team with no starting rotation would have picked someone five years away, at the least, from becoming a member of that rotation, when they could have had someone to include in that rotation either this season or next season.

And drafting need is not an either/or. For example, would you suggest that the Reds should have used a 1st rd. pick on a catcher when they had young Johnny Bench, even though that catcher was the "best player available?" Hopefully, you'd say of course not. There is nothing wrong with looking at a gaping hole in your organization and look toward taking the best available college pitcher in a draft. We are talking about your first round pick here, not the entire draft. While I appreciate your mention of the "best player available" theory, certainly you understand that the dynamics of zooming in on a pick are much more complex than that, esp. in a game where you have pitchers and players.

SteelSD
06-01-2006, 12:58 PM
only 1 pitcher (verlander) from the '04 class is in the majors, correct? and he was gone when we took homer. i'm sure we would have taken him if he dropped to the 7th pick, but he didn't, and besides verlander and sowers, i think bailey is the best pitcher from that draft. maybe he will be better than both of them, we will just have to wait and see.

Verlander, Weaver (who was the guy I'd have taken), and Huston Street.

From the ranks of those drafted after Bailey in Round 1:

Thomas Diamond- AA
Bill Bray- AAA
Scott Elbert- High A
David Purcey- AAA
Chris Lambert- AA
Glen Perkins- AA
Philip Hughes- AA
Kyle Waldrop- Low A
Taylor Tankersley- AA

And that's just through pick #27. The problem is and always has been that if a High School pitcher is taken in the top ten and is not the consensus best pitcher in the draft, his chances are virtually nil that he'll ever turn into a consistent ace-level starting pitcher.

History tells us that Homer Bailey-level talents are consistently and dramatically overdrafted. Unfortunately, those type of selections are often billed as "High Risk/High Reward" selections. Yet we know they're actually "High Risk/Low Reward" selections because they pretty much never work out as a team hopes. And when what a team needs is a highly advanced probable MLB contributor but takes a raw "upside" talent who will, in almost every possible scenario, not work out that high in a draft that's a real honest-to-God issue.

dougdirt
06-01-2006, 01:01 PM
TR, I am stealing this from another post I made yesterday.

I dunno, lets look at the college arms taken in the 2004 first round.

Justin Verlander speaks for himself. He was gone.
Phillip Humber has not pitched this year, and has only made it 1 level ahead of where Bailey is despite being 3 years older than Bailey. Numbers arent impressive.
Jeff Niemann has pitched all of 30 minor league innings and has yet to pitch this year.
Jeremy Sowers....well we all know that story. He was gone also.
Everyone after this was available at the time the Reds drafted now.
Wade Townsend had TJ surgery in the offseason I believe....man that Rice Trio turned out well.
Thomas Diamond is currently in AA at the age of 23. He has a 3.13 ERA and a wHIP of 1.39. He has a k/bb ratio of 60/32 and a bb/9 of 6.29/9. His k/9 is 11.73.
Jared Weaver, his numbers are quite good. He recently made his Major League Debut. Last year in a split between A+ and AA he had a 3.82 and 3.98 as a 22 year old. This year in AAA he had a 2.05 ERA before his call up.
Bill Bray is a reliever, so we wont go into that much.
David Purcey is 24 and in AAA with a 4.12 ERA and a 1.60 WHIP.
Chris Lambert is 23 and in AA with a 5.11 ERA.
Glen Perkins is 23 in AA with a 3.33 ERA, 1.21 WHIP, 3.31 bb/9, 10.17 k/9.
Taylor Tankersley is a reliever.
Matt Campbell struggled last year in the MWL as a 22 year old with an ERA of 4.66 and a WHIP of 1.74. He has yet to pitch this year due to arm troubles.
JP Howell started 15 games for the Royals in 2005, he had an ERA of 6.19. He is currently in AAA with an ERA of 5.67.
Zach Jackson is 23 and in AAA with an ERA of 3.00, WHIP of 1.33, bb/9 is 3.63, k/9 is 6.16.
Justin Orenduff is 23 and in AA with an ERA of 3.40, WHIP of 1.17, bb/9 is 3.40 and k/9 is 9.65.
Tyler Lumsden is 23 and in AA with an ERA of 3.27, WHIP of 1.26, bb/9 is 3.13 and k/9 is 6.68.
Matt Fox struggled badly in rookie ball in 2005 and has yet to pitch in 2006 due to numerous injuries.
Huston Street is a reliever....very good one too.
Jeff Marquez was the last player of the first round. He is 21 and is playing in the FSL. His ERA is 4.86, WHIP is 1.60, walk and strikeout numbers arent anything to write home about either.

So you can argue that maybe you could argue to have taken Jared Weaver over Bailey. I think Bailey has put up numbers at an age that are more impressive than anyone else taken after him from the college ranks. I also think that the High school pitching class of that first round has out performed that years colleg epitching class by far, even if you include Verlander.

As a side note to all of that, I dont care about how many of those college guys make it to the bigs before Bailey, I care baout how good they are when they get there compared to how good he is when he gets there.

dougdirt
06-01-2006, 01:04 PM
Oh and if nowdays we had Johnny Bench and the best player available were a catcher, yes I would pick him. Odds are I would be trading him down the line for something else I need, but I am one who strongly believes in taking the best player available, regardless of anything else. Back when Bench played, I cant say how often players were traded for top prospects, becuase well I wasnt around then so I cant say. These days though, it happens quite often and if the best player available were a catcher, you bet I would take him. What if something were to happen to Bench 2 years later, you need a catcher, or what if you needed a player badly and someone else needed a catcher....you can make that trade now becuase you have a real good catcher sitting in AA or AAA tearing it up.

tbball10
06-01-2006, 01:15 PM
am i the only one not impressed with these guys who are ahead of bailey by one level and 3 or 4 years older. none of them are dominating their level either. actually, the success, or in this case lack of, for the other pitchers in the '04 class, have made the drafting of bailey look better.

and i agree 100% with dougdirt... who cares if some of the college pitchers make it to the majors before bailey if they are not successful. i believe bailey will outperform all these pitchers at the major league level.

M2
06-01-2006, 01:25 PM
am i the only one not impressed with these guys who are ahead of bailey by one level and 3 or 4 years older. none of them are dominating their level either. actually, the success, or in this case lack of, for the other pitchers in the '04 class, have made the drafting of bailey look better.

and i agree 100% with dougdirt... who cares if some of the college pitchers make it to the majors before bailey if they are not successful. i believe bailey will outperform all these pitchers at the major league level.

Problem is your belief lacks much in the way of foundation. Hey, we all want Homer Bailey to be a great pitcher because he's a Reds property. But wanting it doesn't make it so. Bailey pales in comparison to the more successful HS pitchers from the 2004 draft too. Maybe you aren't impressed by older pitchers who are closer to pitching well in the majors (though I'd argue it's something the Reds desperately need), but don't sit there and tell me Bailey's been impressive to date. He's got a career 4.27 ERA to date. It should go without saying that's not exactly the hallmark of a future ace no matter what age he is.

dougdirt
06-01-2006, 01:31 PM
M2, you know that ERA is not a good stat to look at. It is way to dependant on team defense. His hits per 9 and strikeouts per 9 are both very good. As for guys being closer to the majors...yeah, a few might be but just because they are closer doesnt mean they are ever going to help their team. Outside of Jared Weaver, not a single one of the college pitchers is showing any sort of dominance, and look pretty much slightly above average for the best of them.

SteelSD
06-01-2006, 01:32 PM
Problem is your belief lacks much in the way of foundation. Hey, we all want Homer Bailey to be a great pitcher because he's a Reds property. But wanting it doesn't make it so. Bailey pales in comparison to the more successful HS pitchers from the 2004 draft too. Maybe you aren't impressed by older pitchers who are closer to pitching well in the majors (though I'd argue it's something the Reds desperately need), but don't sit there and tell me Bailey's been impressive to date. He's got a career 4.27 ERA to date. It should go without saying that's not exactly the hallmark of a future ace no matter what age he is.

Yep. And I don't think folks really understand what they're asking Bailey to do:

Become the first HS pitcher selected in the top 10 while not being the consensus best pitcher in the draft who'll turn into a consistent ace-level starter for the team that drafted him.

Hey, I'm all for "firsts". But that one's a whopper.

traderumor
06-01-2006, 01:35 PM
Oh and if nowdays we had Johnny Bench and the best player available were a catcher, yes I would pick him. Odds are I would be trading him down the line for something else I need, but I am one who strongly believes in taking the best player available, regardless of anything else. Back when Bench played, I cant say how often players were traded for top prospects, becuase well I wasnt around then so I cant say. These days though, it happens quite often and if the best player available were a catcher, you bet I would take him. What if something were to happen to Bench 2 years later, you need a catcher, or what if you needed a player badly and someone else needed a catcher....you can make that trade now becuase you have a real good catcher sitting in AA or AAA tearing it up.And you would have had to fork over a large signing bonus to draft trade bait. No thanks to that philosophy. Injury is an issue of depth, not of big money 1st round picks. I would not give you the money to sign the player in question if you want to go full-blown BPA and never consider need/no need, but of course I wouldn't hire you in the first place with that draft philosophy.

dougdirt
06-01-2006, 01:35 PM
Steel, I will never understand why someone taken in the top 10 is different than someone taken between 11 and 30. If you are a HS pitcher, you are a HS pitcher. It has just happened that way. There have been plenty of HS pitchers to make it just fine. It is just by dumb luck that some in the top 10 havent made it.

SteelSD
06-01-2006, 01:37 PM
M2, you know that ERA is not a good stat to look at. It is way to dependant on team defense. His hits per 9 and strikeouts per 9 are both very good.

And Hits per 9 Innings pitched isn't defense-dependent? When did that happen?

dougdirt
06-01-2006, 01:37 PM
And you would have had to fork over a large signing bonus to draft trade bait. No thanks to that philosophy. Injury is an issue of depth, not of big money 1st round picks. I would not give you the money to sign the player in question if you want to go full-blown BPA and never consider need/no need, but of course I wouldn't hire you in the first place with that draft philosophy.

Thats fine. I never said he would be trade bait, I said he could be. So is everyone else though. Injury is an issue of depth, and if he is in your system, hey there is your depth. You call him up and you hardly skipped a beat. I also am glad you arent the owner of our team, becuase not going with the BPA is a mistake in my opinion. Why should you settle for something because its a need, when in baseball, the odds of a first round pick making a real impact are not very good?

traderumor
06-01-2006, 01:38 PM
M2, you know that ERA is not a good stat to look at. It is way to dependant on team defense. His hits per 9 and strikeouts per 9 are both very good. As for guys being closer to the majors...yeah, a few might be but just because they are closer doesnt mean they are ever going to help their team. Outside of Jared Weaver, not a single one of the college pitchers is showing any sort of dominance, and look pretty much slightly above average for the best of them.If I may jump in, ERA is a great stat to look at. So, if he had an above average defense, would we all be happy and anxiously awaiting the big call to Homer if his ERA was 3.80 if his defense costs him half a run? Hardly.

dougdirt
06-01-2006, 01:41 PM
Well steel I think maybe I spoke there before thinking. Im not much a fan of ERA as far as projecting a pitchers ability on the mound. If so, Steve Kelly might be one of our top prospects, right? Bailey doesnt give up many hits, and he strikes out a lot of hitters. His control has shown improvement by the looks of a 3-1 k-bb ratio this year. With his ability to make bats miss, it improves his ability to keep fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play means less chances for hits.

dougdirt
06-01-2006, 01:41 PM
If I may jump in, ERA is a great stat to look at. So, if he had an above average defense, would we all be happy and anxiously awaiting the big call to Homer if his ERA was 3.80 if his defense costs him half a run? Hardly.

So Steve Kelly is one of our best prospects? His ERA looks real good.

traderumor
06-01-2006, 01:42 PM
Thats fine. I never said he would be trade bait, I said he could be. So is everyone else though. Injury is an issue of depth, and if he is in your system, hey there is your depth. You call him up and you hardly skipped a beat. I also am glad you arent the owner of our team, becuase not going with the BPA is a mistake in my opinion. Why should you settle for something because its a need, when in baseball, the odds of a first round pick making a real impact are not very good?The logic is going downhill fast. On that premise, why sign a 1st round pick at all, need or BPA? The funny thing is that IIRC, M2 wanted us to take Chris Nelson as a HS SS and BPA who has not fared well last I heard, so either of those picks wouldn't have gotten us far. Note that is not a dig on M2's judgment or theory, but simply agreeing with the volatile nature of picks.

All that I am criticizing of your BPA theory is that with a high 1st rd pick, pitcher vs. player is a valid "need" consideration, esp. with the gaping hole in the Reds pitching staff. Theory is theory, but sometimes it doesn't play well in all circumstances.

SteelSD
06-01-2006, 01:43 PM
Steel, I will never understand why someone taken in the top 10 is different than someone taken between 11 and 30. If you are a HS pitcher, you are a HS pitcher. It has just happened that way. There have been plenty of HS pitchers to make it just fine. It is just by dumb luck that some in the top 10 havent made it.

Contrary to your protestations, it's not "dumb luck". It's trend. And that trend is caused by the fact that pitchers of Bailey's ilk are consistently over-drafted in that area of the first round. We know this because not one of them has ever ended up being as good as they were supposed to be given their draft position.

I hope that Homer Bailey will turn out to be great because lord knows the Reds need something great. But I also realize that my hope equals hope in a historically significant outlier-level occurrence. That's great if it's just hoping, but it's a far shot off from being anything resembling a reasonable expectation.

dougdirt
06-01-2006, 01:50 PM
Being overdrafted? So if Bailey was taken at #14 he would have a better chance of succeeding in the bigs? You must be joking.

M2
06-01-2006, 01:50 PM
M2, you know that ERA is not a good stat to look at. It is way to dependant on team defense.

No, it's not. In fact, if you've got a particularly sloppy defense then all those unearned runs won't count. Unless you've got some evidence that Bailey's pitched in front of a catastrophically leaden defensive unit to date (and he hasn't), that's a complete red herring.

Care to come up with a list of stud major league pitchers with a minor league ERA above 4.00? Maybe there's one out there, but I'm unaware of it if there is.


His hits per 9 and strikeouts per 9 are both very good.

He's got some strengths. He's got some weaknesses that have overwhelmed them too. He's been a mixed bag. Hardly screams "Ace!" at me.


As for guys being closer to the majors...yeah, a few might be but just because they are closer doesnt mean they are ever going to help their team.

And yet many of them will. The first wave is landing now. What's less clear is if Homer Bailey is ever going to help the Reds.


Outside of Jared Weaver, not a single one of the college pitchers is showing any sort of dominance, and look pretty much slightly above average for the best of them.

Tommy Diamond's been a power pitching stud in the minors. He walks a few people, but he's been harder to hit than Bailey with a better K rate and he's now tearing through the best hitter's circuit in AA while Bailey's struggling in the best pitcher's circuit in High A. I'd take a fireballing workhorse any day of the week.

Frankly, outside of Weaver and Diamond, who cares what anyone else is doing? Weaver was there for the Reds to pick if they were willing to spend the money (and they had it). Diamond was there if they wanted to spend the slot money. Either way, the Reds would ahead of where they're at with Bailey.

SteelSD
06-01-2006, 01:53 PM
Well steel I think maybe I spoke there before thinking. Im not much a fan of ERA as far as projecting a pitchers ability on the mound. If so, Steve Kelly might be one of our top prospects, right? Bailey doesnt give up many hits, and he strikes out a lot of hitters. His control has shown improvement by the looks of a 3-1 k-bb ratio this year. With his ability to make bats miss, it improves his ability to keep fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play means less chances for hits.

doug, I'm not a big fan of ERA either, but K/BB rate doesn't tell us much of anything either nor does WHIP because it's another defense-dependent measurement. K/9 IP does and Homer's good at that. But his HR rate (defense independent) while his BB rate has dropped. That can be good, but not if he's exchanging BB for HR because then it's still a control- or, more precisely- a command issue.

Pitchers can get through the low minors while producing high K rates by throwing hard. But if Bailey continues to morph his Walks into Home Runs, it's going to be a long hard road ahead. What I want to see from Bailey is a decent Walk rate (heck, I'd be fine if it's around 4.00 BB/9 IP), a high K rate (which he has), and a very low HR rate. That's the trifecta and as soon as I see it, I'll be happy to give him a bunch of credit for moving his game forward.

M2
06-01-2006, 01:57 PM
The logic is going downhill fast. On that premise, why sign a 1st round pick at all, need or BPA? The funny thing is that IIRC, M2 wanted us to take Chris Nelson as a HS SS and BPA who has not fared well last I heard, so either of those picks wouldn't have gotten us far. Note that is not a dig on M2's judgment or theory, but simply agreeing with the volatile nature of picks.

And I'll fully admit that picking Weaver or Diamond (and folks made cases for both) has proven a wiser course of action. Like Bailey, Nelson's turned out to be far less than he was billed as being.

Mistakes get made and when they do people ought to strive to learn from them.

traderumor
06-01-2006, 02:00 PM
So Steve Kelly is one of our best prospects? His ERA looks real good.No, nice red herring. You made a claim that ERA is not a good stat because of defense. I acknowledged that a poor defense, with the presumption of low range, would somewhat inflate his ERA. No where has anyone made an absolute statement that ERA is the only stat to look at when evaluating pitchers, which they would have had to do for your statement to have any relevance.

dougdirt
06-01-2006, 02:01 PM
No, it's not. In fact, if you've got a particularly sloppy defense then all those unearned runs won't count. Unless you've got some evidence that Bailey's pitched in front of a catastrophically leaden defensive unit to date (and he hasn't), that's a complete red herring.

Care to come up with a list of stud major league pitchers with a minor league ERA above 4.00? Maybe there's one out there, but I'm unaware of it if there is.

Johan Santana. Minor league ERA- 4.56 in 382 innings.



And yet many of them will. The first wave is landing now. What's less clear is if Homer Bailey is ever going to help the Reds.

The first wave consists of 2 players. Verlander and Weaver. Relief pitchers dont really count much.



Tommy Diamond's been a power pitching stud in the minors. He walks a few people, but he's been harder to hit than Bailey with a better K rate and he's now tearing through the best hitter's circuit in AA while Bailey's struggling in the best pitcher's circuit in High A. I'd take a fireballing workhorse any day of the week.
6+ walks per 9 innings is a few people?! That is a whole crapload. His WHIP is 1.39. That surely doesnt scream much to me for a 23 year old in AA. His ERA looks nice, but his WHIP says its not going to stay there long.



Frankly, outside of Weaver and Diamond, who cares what anyone else is doing? Weaver was there for the Reds to pick if they were willing to spend the money (and they had it). Diamond was there if they wanted to spend the slot money. Either way, the Reds would ahead of where they're at with Bailey.
Yes, they would be ahead of where they are right now with Bailey. That doesnt mean that either of those pitchers are going to be better than Bailey. It just means they would have an older pitcher at AA with a WHIP that is scary and an older pitcher with 1 start at the big leagues. Like I said, I can see where Weaver should have been the pick and I am not going to try and argue that one, although I dont have a problem with Bailey there either. I do have a problem trying to say Diamond would have been a better selection than Bailey. He is 3 years older, just 1 level higher, strikes out 1 guy more per game, and walks 3 more per game. His WHIP is higher as well.

M2
06-01-2006, 02:49 PM
Johan Santana. Minor league ERA- 4.56 in 382 innings.

You know, I forgot about Santana. So there he is. The outlier. The exception. Now explain to me why, of the steady wave of kids who might be a Santana and aren't, why Bailey is different.


The first wave consists of 2 players. Verlander and Weaver. Relief pitchers dont really count much.

Sowers is on the verge too. Diamond, Perkins, Purcey, Orenduff (man I like him), Jackson and perhaps Howell (who should be in AA, the Royals are the most inept boobs perhaps ever when it comes to development) will be in the second wave landing during the 2007 season.


6+ walks per 9 innings is a few people?! That is a whole crapload. His WHIP is 1.39. That surely doesnt scream much to me for a 23 year old in AA. His ERA looks nice, but his WHIP says its not going to stay there long.

Diamond had a spotty first few starts this year. The WHIP, like his ERA, has been dropping steadily.


Yes, they would be ahead of where they are right now with Bailey. That doesnt mean that either of those pitchers are going to be better than Bailey.

Doesn't mean they won't be either. IMO, I'd much rather have near full-grown men who are good pitchers putting the finishing touches on what they'll need for the majors than helter-skelter boys who aren't anywhere close to having mastered their talents. All of them are young. For me, it's the difference between young with realized talent vs. extremely young with unrealized talent.


It just means they would have an older pitcher at AA with a WHIP that is scary and an older pitcher with 1 start at the big leagues.

No, what it means is that you'd have a young, talented pitcher on whom you could realistically make some major league projections.


Like I said, I can see where Weaver should have been the pick and I am not going to try and argue that one, although I dont have a problem with Bailey there either. I do have a problem trying to say Diamond would have been a better selection than Bailey. He is 3 years older, just 1 level higher, strikes out 1 guy more per game, and walks 3 more per game. His WHIP is higher as well.

His overall WHIP and BB/9 over the past two years are lower than Bailey's. As I already mentioned, those 2006 numbers have been dropping steadily over the past month as well and I full expect Diamond, who's demonstrated the ability to sustain a quality pitching run, will continue in that vein.

You say one level and technically it is. Except:

A) Making the transition to AA is the biggest jump in the minors
B) The Texas League is one of the hardest leagues to pitch in, maybe the hardest
C) The Florida State League is one of the easiest leagues to pitch in, maybe the easiest
D) Diamond, after a slow start in April, is now dominating in his league
E) Bailey seemingly can't put together two starts to save himself

It's not like Bailey's a year behind Diamond on the development curve. He's nowhere near the pitcher Diamond was last year (when he dominated the Cali League - a hitter's circuit) and I'm guessing he's not all that close to being the pitcher Diamond was when he got drafted in 2004 and completely dominated during the short stint he saw in Low A.

Far as I can tell, Diamond still owns every day of the three-year stagger he enjoys on Bailey.

tbball10
06-01-2006, 03:47 PM
thomas diamond has a 3.13era in aa, and bailey has a 3.97era in high-a. they are both power pitchers and k alot of batters. the only glaring difference i see is that diamond is 3 years older than bailey.

yes, diamond dominated high-a last year (8-0 1.99era) and then struggled in aa. so lets let bailey work on his stuff and start him in high-a in 2 years and see what happens. i'm pretty sure he'd be unhittable, since he is sometimes right now.

tbball10
06-01-2006, 03:55 PM
also, this is a little off topic, but since everyone complains about drafting bailey, why does no one gripe about the travis wood selection in the 2nd round last year. we could have had several good college pitchers with that pick.

Aronchis
06-01-2006, 03:57 PM
Weaver wasn't draftable so he shouldn't count(and he doesn't have a out pitch either, boy is that going to get shown up in the bigs).

Diamond may not be a major league starter either, because he doesn't have a outpitch or a overly good offspeed pitch. That is why he was passed IMO. That the Reds took a VERY long time to pick Bailey after the Indians "surprisingly" took Sowers, I think probably blew things wide open and some heated arguements were thrown across the table. Reds should have lost more in 2003!!!!!

traderumor
06-01-2006, 04:09 PM
also, this is a little off topic, but since everyone complains about drafting bailey, why does no one gripe about the travis wood selection in the 2nd round last year. we could have had several good college pitchers with that pick.red herring. The bailey pick was a high 1st rd. pick. There is a huge difference in the money and the difference between college and HS pitcher talent wise and success rate is a little blurrier at that point in the draft.

M2
06-01-2006, 04:11 PM
Aronchis, for a guy without an out pitch, Diamond sure makes a ton of people swing and miss. Seems to me, a plus fastball is THE out pitch to have and Diamond's got that in addition to a plus change.

I remember that lag on the pick in 2004 too. Though it goes to the ability of the folks in the room. Sowers had become the odds-on guy the Indians were going to pick (BA had it called in fact) and if that somehow pantsed the Reds and they were making an off-the-cuff pick with Bailey, then I'm sure glad a new team is making the picks this year.

M2
06-01-2006, 04:21 PM
also, this is a little off topic, but since everyone complains about drafting bailey, why does no one gripe about the travis wood selection in the 2nd round last year. we could have had several good college pitchers with that pick.


What tr said. Also, Wood pitched better than expected when he arrived last year and he's still doing all right this year. As a point of comparison, he's done much better to date than Homer Bailey had at this point a year ago.

So, even if you weren't thrilled with the selection of Wood, it's tough to complain with the results to date. IMO, the scout who singled him out deserves a lot of credit for catching some stuff most other folks missed.

tbball10
06-01-2006, 04:23 PM
the reds could have had a couple of good college pitchers with the wood pick. micah owings was one that was available. i like the pick, i'm just saying if you like college pitchers over high school pitchers, i don't know why it would matter what round.

M2
06-01-2006, 04:42 PM
the reds could have had a couple of good college pitchers with the wood pick. micah owings was one that was available. i like the pick, i'm just saying if you like college pitchers over high school pitchers, i don't know why it would matter what round.

Because the surer things among the college crowd go high in the first round. So, after you get past those surer things, the chances of landing a good college arm begins to drop down to where the odds of finding a good HS arm.

There really are no surer things in the prep ranks (except as noted with guys like Kazmir, Beckett and Wood).

I think you're working under the misconception that folks think HS arms never should be taken. No one that I'm aware of has made that case. It's not either/or for most folks. Knowing when is the key.

traderumor
06-01-2006, 04:48 PM
the reds could have had a couple of good college pitchers with the wood pick. micah owings was one that was available. i like the pick, i'm just saying if you like college pitchers over high school pitchers, i don't know why it would matter what round.

Ok, one more try. Drafting a HS pitcher in the first half of the first round is the no-no. Can it get any simpler than the fact that M2 and Steel have been bringing up throughout this thread? Homer would be the first ever of his type (1st 15 picks, not best pitcher in the entire draft) to go on to be a successful major league pitcher.

After that, it is a judgment call that should not prefer a college over a HS pitcher for that reason only, or vice versa, but should focus solely on the merits of the individuals under consideration. In the case of wood vs. owings, et al., I would hope the pick was based on the premise that Wood had a greater likelihood of being a highly successful major league pitcher for the Reds than did any other pitcher on the board at that time, HS or college.

cincyinco
06-01-2006, 05:11 PM
but should focus solely on the merits of the individuals under consideration

Don't you think thats done with every teams pick? Aside from those concerned with signability?

As an aside - it took me a long time to understand what m2 and steele are trying to say. I am not tryin to bag on you two, but sometimes I am not certain you express what you're trying to say in the best of ways. Perhaps you can try to rephrase this.

Dougdirt will attest... he and I have had some heated debates with m2 and steele about this subject. But it comes down to this:

Picking a HS arm in the first 10-15 picks is fine, if you can truely identify a prep guy that will succeed and should be picked there. The problem is, no one has been able to do it. In theory doug, it is fine. However, scouts have proven throughout history of the draft, to be inept at doing so. That may change one day, with better scouting. But I think what everyone is trying to say is, that until someone is able to buck the trend, the Reds are better served going with a collegiate arm.

I still believe its not impossible to make the right pick of a prep guy with a top 10-15 pick. Its going to happen one of these days when scouts figure it out. But scouting is still a very inexact science and what m2, steele, and others are trying to stress is that we as an organization should not bank on us bucking the trend, especially considering our recent trend of developing any kind of pitching at all.

It took me a long while to understand what these guys were saying - so hopefully I've paraphrased it differently in a way that may shed some different light on it. In summary, we should be able to pick a prep arm in the top of round 1 if scouting is correct on the guy and you're able to identify him as a fairly certain thing. The problem is, scouts haven't figured out how to do this with prep guys who they pick in the top of round 1, unless its staring them in the face(beckett, wood, etc.)

M2
06-01-2006, 05:26 PM
That's pretty much it exactly cincyinco.

IMO, the jarring part of it for folks is that it's positively unAmerican in concept. We believe there's nothing holding back the individual and if some kids throws a fastball like Zeus tosses lightning bolts then by gum if he's got enough fire in his belly you've got a star on your hands. We come from the land of talent and desire.

Being told that certain industry inefficiencies makes that a much dicier proposition is like receiving a communique from the Politburo.

cincyinco
06-01-2006, 05:34 PM
Yeah, I think everyone should take a deep breath and relax.

No one is saying its impossible, just very very improbable ;)

Ah.. Douglas Adams.. thank you for that line.

SteelSD
06-01-2006, 08:40 PM
Being overdrafted? So if Bailey was taken at #14 he would have a better chance of succeeding in the bigs? You must be joking.

I wouldn't be joking because I'd never say what you're misinterpreting me to mean.

Homer Bailey at #14 in that particular draft would have been a significantly better value than Homer Bailey at #7. Homer Bailey wouldn't be any better or worse a performer based on where in the first round he would have been drafted, but a later selection would have assuredly been a lower risk selection. Instead, the Reds put all their eggs in a historical outlier basket in the hope that Bailey would be the first High School pitcher in draft history who'd actually be worth the selection with which he was taken- and they did it with better more advanced pitchers still available.

And just so we're clear, I've never (not once) advocated never ever taking a High School arm in the first round as long as an organization is in a position to do so and when all the better arms are off the board. But I also don't advocate a policy of overdrafting a player when better choices are still on the board and in a "need" area to boot.

And while you're mucho happy with the selections of drafting a Bailey and a Bruce, I'd have been snapping up Jered Weaver and Cesar Carrillo. My strategy would produce players more likely to help a team with a good offense and no pitching hit its window of opportunity while hoping to hit on HS arm value selections further down in the draft.

Aronchis
06-01-2006, 11:00 PM
Weaver wasn't a possiblity so he is mute. Carrillo? Maybe, but that doesn't smell as good on resumes like Bruce or Bailey would. Since we had a lameduck regime, looking for that resume stuffer was probably a interest down the road a couple of years as well.

Bailey has been compared to Beckett or Wood, but if you watch him pitch, he looks more like AJ Burnett. I don't see any real "++" with him. He has a plus fastball and a plus curve(which is very inconsistant). He is trying to develope a changeup, which he should overtime.

He obviously was greener than "fans" expected as his rookie campaign showed in Sarasota, thus are "fast" expectations should have been slowed. If he gets his curve down consistantly that just in itself will improve his value and numbers in high A. Developing his change is the gravvy to the Majors.

Now with Krivsky who Cast has put a long term stake in, I think a Carrillo becomes a possiblity.

traderumor
06-01-2006, 11:13 PM
He obviously was greener than "fans" expected as his rookie campaign showed in Sarasota, thus are "fast" expectations should have been slowed. If he gets his curve down consistantly that just in itself will improve his value and numbers in high A. Developing his change is the gravvy to the Majors.

It seems the fans had more reasonable expectations of what an early first round HS whiz kid should be producing. Too bad the one's picking him didn't understand that.

MikeS21
06-01-2006, 11:41 PM
I'm jumping in fairly late in the discussion, but I do think ERA is a decent indicator. As someone already pointed out, defense isn't going to tack a full run onto ERA. If Bailey doesn't put runners on base, then his ERA should drop.

The problem with Bailey is that most Reds fans look to him to be the up and coming franchise pitcher - the ace in training. But his minor league numbers do not approach ace-like quality. At High-A, Josh Beckett was putting up a sub 2.00 ERA in the same league Bailey is pitching in right now (And he was only 19-20 years old). Why isn't Bailey putting up those kind of numbers?

If you really want a dose of reality, compare Bailey's High-A numbers to the High-A stats of the guys currently in the Reds' rotation. Virtually all of them had better High-A numbers than what Bailey is putting up this year. Even the departed Dave Williams posted a sub 3.00 ERA at High A ball. If Bailey is a better talent, he should be putting up better numbers.

I have to go with M2 on this. Homer Bailey is overrated.

SteelSD
06-01-2006, 11:51 PM
Weaver wasn't a possiblity so he is mute.

Weaver was a possibility so no, the point is not moot. If you care about being a good baseball team and have a Jered Weaver staring you in the face, you take him. And then you pay him because any additional investment required is far better than the alternative.


Carrillo? Maybe, but that doesn't smell as good on resumes like Bruce or Bailey would. Since we had a lameduck regime, looking for that resume stuffer was probably a interest down the road a couple of years as well.

Yeah, a GM in the first year of his contract who was hired based on his five-year plan outline was a "lame duck" just looking to score a huge resume hit by selecting a HS pitcher who wouldn't show up, if ever, until well after his contract had expired.


Bailey has been compared to Beckett or Wood, but if you watch him pitch, he looks more like AJ Burnett. I don't see any real "++" with him. He has a plus fastball and a plus curve(which is very inconsistant). He is trying to develope a changeup, which he should overtime.

Homer Bailey has never been compared to Josh Beckett or Kerry Wood by a single credible source. The only time those names are raised in the same sentence is to tell folks they're all from Texas.


He obviously was greener than "fans" expected as his rookie campaign showed in Sarasota, thus are "fast" expectations should have been slowed. If he gets his curve down consistantly that just in itself will improve his value and numbers in high A. Developing his change is the gravvy to the Majors.

Yeah. I agree. If he starts pitching way better at some point, he might be really good. And the only expectations that have been placed on Bailey is that he consistently dominate kids his own age. As soon as that happens, you'll see hopes raised.


Now with Krivsky who Cast has put a long term stake in, I think a Carrillo becomes a possiblity.

I think we both agree on that, but we needed that kind of strategy enacted two years ago.

Aronchis
07-02-2006, 09:33 PM
Things change fast, 31 innings 1ER and 37k's can change peoples memories fast, doing 17 straight scoreless in AA helps. Homer was the definition of Reds drafts failures, now he is the best thing since burnt toast. What will the opinion of Bailey be by Augest?

cincy09
07-02-2006, 09:52 PM
It seems possible that, right or wrong, opinions may be formed with Homer in a Reds uniform in August.

dougdirt
07-02-2006, 10:17 PM
Things change fast, 31 innings 1ER and 37k's can change peoples memories fast, doing 17 straight scoreless in AA helps. Homer was the definition of Reds drafts failures, now he is the best thing since burnt toast. What will the opinion of Bailey be by Augest?

How in the world was Bailey the definition of Reds draft failures? Even at the time this topic was started in no way was Homer Bailey any type of draft failure.

kaldaniels
07-03-2006, 12:07 AM
How in the world was Bailey the definition of Reds draft failures? Even at the time this topic was started in no way was Homer Bailey any type of draft failure.

Failure maybe not...however many people saw it as ineptness of the front office, and now seem to delight in any struggle (not many lately) by this young man. I think that was the point trying to be made.

lollipopcurve
07-03-2006, 09:53 AM
People have seen what they want to see all along. But it's becoming harder and harder to dismiss Homer as a likely failure, I would think. One thing is for sure -- this kid has some take-notice Texas lightning in that right arm.

Aronchis
04-25-2007, 11:38 PM
I always like bringing up this thread when Bailey "struggles"(though in the far more advanced AAA, his outward numbers haven't been up to usual snuff so far) or has this "mysterious" fall in velocity.

My belief isn't if Bailey will succeed, but what level in the majors will he succeed at(the infamous 'ace' or something weaker like Harang, which is still good).

I think it is clear, you let time tell the story. A few starts isn't long enough.

Aronchis
05-28-2007, 11:48 PM
Bailey has improved his last 3 AAA starts. Still some work to do but getting closer.

We are also at the 1 year mark of Bailey's rise.

tbball10
05-29-2007, 04:46 PM
I always like bringing up this thread when Bailey "struggles"(though in the far more advanced AAA, his outward numbers haven't been up to usual snuff so far) or has this "mysterious" fall in velocity.

My belief isn't if Bailey will succeed, but what level in the majors will he succeed at(the infamous 'ace' or something weaker like Harang, which is still good).

I think it is clear, you let time tell the story. A few starts isn't long enough.

when did bailey lose velocity?

Screwball
05-29-2007, 07:16 PM
when did bailey lose velocity?

M2 claimed he did earlier in the thread.

StillFunkyB
05-29-2007, 10:54 PM
If Homer Bailey turns out to be Aaron Harang, I'll take it.

Triples
05-30-2007, 11:36 AM
I think its because of the publicity he's gotten that has created an almost unattainable expectation by the Reds faithful. The Red's brass understand Bailey's shortcommings and that is why there pulling back on the reigns a bit with him.


Every start he has that isnt well gets blown up around here. Why?
Why is it when Jay Bruce goes 0-18 twice this year, no one really makes a fuss? Where they both not first round picks? Where they both not given million dollar signing bonuses? Can someone explain to me the difference?

dougdirt
05-30-2007, 08:11 PM
I think its because of the publicity he's gotten that has created an almost unattainable expectation by the Reds faithful. The Red's brass understand Bailey's shortcommings and that is why there pulling back on the reigns a bit with him.
I did make that post nearly a year ago today.... but still, people throw a lot onto the shoulders of him as if he were the only player in our entire system.

fearofpopvol1
06-09-2009, 02:38 PM
interesting discussion here

travisgrimes
06-09-2009, 04:59 PM
Well i think most the criticism comes from the fact he was an arrogant prick before this year. Believe me I have met him on several occasions including this season and the guy seems to have made a 180 degree turn in his attitude. I met him for the 1st time 2 years ago at a minor league game and the guy was a rude jerk who thought his crap didn't stink.

GOYA
06-09-2009, 08:33 PM
I think it has more to do with the fact that we NEED Homer Bailey to be a STUD a lot more than we need Jay Bruce to be one.

Funny how things change in 3 years.

Blitz Dorsey
06-09-2009, 09:38 PM
Dude, you did not just bump a thread from two years ago did you?

Oh no, you did!

Hoosier Red
06-09-2009, 10:25 PM
I was wondering this myself still actually. I was listening to Sportstalk Sunday morning and he was taking his normal abuse. I kept thinking to myself, how is Homer different from any other minor league pitcher? Maybe he'll make it, maybe he won't but either way we'll find out by next spring. At least we'll see if he makes it with the Reds.

His million dollar bonus has no effect on the Reds current salary so we'll find out soon enough.