PDA

View Full Version : Will Drew Stubbs be a bust?



Pages : [1] 2

fearofpopvol1
09-17-2006, 12:35 AM
I'm not overly familiar with his playing, but it seems like the reports about him don't value him super highly (especially considering where he went in the draft).

RedsZone farm experts, what do you think?

Patrick Bateman
09-17-2006, 03:03 AM
He has a very high ceiling, but his chances are poor. To me he's a "boom or bust" prospect. If everything clicks he could be a special player, but considering his skills are very unrefined for his age, the odds are that he will be a bust.

icehole3
09-17-2006, 07:45 AM
I would give him at least 2 to 3 more years to work out his problems. To label any of our farm system players a bust after just 1 year of rookie ball is unfair. What if Bruce bats .220 next year do we label him a bust. Minor league players need time this isnt pro football.

lollipopcurve
09-17-2006, 09:55 AM
I doubt it. Supposedly, he plays premium defense in CF already, major league quality (I have no idea if this is true). Even if he struggles with the bat for a couple years, he'll still be seen as a player with a high ceiling, meaning he'll have value in a trade package. He'd have to get really bad at the plate with an accompanying erosion in his play defensively and on the basepaths before he "busts" completely.

redsupport
09-17-2006, 01:04 PM
LIncoln Curtis
John Oliver
Chad Mottola
Pat Watkins
Don Watannabe
get the arithmetic progression here

Falls City Beer
09-17-2006, 01:42 PM
Pat Watkins is an ideal comp for Stubbs...

or perhaps St. Louis phenom Stubby Clapp.

redsupport
09-17-2006, 02:34 PM
Can you say, David Espinoza

Falls City Beer
09-17-2006, 02:50 PM
No team can have too many prospects who are unable to hit the ball out of the infield.

KronoRed
09-17-2006, 04:16 PM
I say make him part of a big trade before we find out.

paulrichjr
09-17-2006, 06:40 PM
Pat Watkins is an ideal comp for Stubbs...

or perhaps St. Louis phenom Stubby Clapp.

He lives in my hometown...Helped my son this year in baseball. Seems to be a good guy but not good enough of a baseball player.

dougdirt
09-17-2006, 07:22 PM
He has a LONG way to go with his bat. His numbers scream out BJ Szymanski JR, and that is not a good thing.

Joseph
09-17-2006, 09:17 PM
Mike Frank?

icehole3
09-18-2006, 04:14 PM
He has a LONG way to go with his bat. His numbers scream out BJ Szymanski JR, and that is not a good thing.

Was BJ a college All-American? Just asking

lollipopcurve
09-18-2006, 06:06 PM
Was BJ a college All-American?


No. He was a latecomer as a prospect. He didn't really hit the radar till his junior year at Princeton, when he hit a long home run off Justin Verlander. He had nowhere near the scrutiny Stubbs did, who has been highly regarded since high school.

flyer85
09-18-2006, 06:27 PM
Was BJ a college All-American? Just askingHe was widely considered the best "athlete" in the draft because of his size, speed, defense and arm, similar to Stubbs. The question on both is exactly the same, will he hit? In the case of BJ it looks like he won't be able to do it and with all the question marks Stubbs sure didn't get off to a good start.

Superdude
09-18-2006, 08:16 PM
I think Stubbs will make the majors, but his potential with the bat could pretty much go anywhere on the spectrum.

TeamSelig
09-19-2006, 01:08 AM
What are his numbers for the year?

dabvu2498
09-19-2006, 10:33 AM
What are his numbers for the year?

.252/.368/.400
19-23 SBs
7 2B, 3 3B, 6 HR, 24 RBI, 39 R
64 K, 32 BB, 210 AB

Patrick Bateman
09-19-2006, 01:22 PM
I like the fact that he has shown some good patience this season. That's a good sign. With that kind of patience he just needs to be able to hit about .250 with 20 homer power to be an effective player once you factor in his great fielding in CF.

texasdave
09-19-2006, 01:42 PM
.252/.368/.400
19-23 SBs
7 2B, 3 3B, 6 HR, 24 RBI, 39 R
64 K, 32 BB, 210 AB

Drew Stubbs had a fine playoff series. If you include these two games along with his regular season performance he ended up:obp-.374/slg-.433/ops-.807with 8 homers. A nice recovery from the doldrums he was in earlier in the summer.

p.s. i posted this previously on another thread, but i figure it might apply here as well.

flyer85
09-19-2006, 02:06 PM
Stubbs was not even close to one of the better offensive players on the Mustangs. Those numbers are very poor for a league notorious for lots of offense.

He can turn it around but he will have to shine next year to make everyone forget about Billings and the question of hit ability to hit go away.

texasdave
09-19-2006, 03:11 PM
On 8/16 Drew Stubbs suffered a concussion. He returned to the lineup on the 24th. From that point on until the finish of the season he tallied the following numbers:
AB-47
H-14
2B-2
HR-4
BB-9
HBP-O
SF-O

Using these numbers Stubbs had the following:
BA-.298
OBP-.411
SLG-.596
OPS-1.007

This could simply have been a hot streak or it could have been an indication that he was turning it around. I honestly don't know, but I hope it was the latter. In any case it seems clear that he has shown enough that he can't be written off as a bust. Not just yet.

mbgrayson
09-19-2006, 03:55 PM
There are several threads on Drew Stubbs, and as I have posted before, I think people in RedsZone are being way too hard on Stubbs. Four quick points;

1. He was injured. People above mentioned that he missed 10 or 12 games with a concussion (see THIS LINK (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50281)for details). Nobody has mentioned his lingering toe injury. (See THIS LINK (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49811)for details on that).

2. He played a LOT of games with almost no down time. Drew Stubbs and the Texas Longhorns started playing games that counted in early February. HERE is a link (http://www.texassports.com/doc_lib/000_stats/base/2006/teamstat.htm) to their games. They played all the way through the college world series, into the first week of June.
(During this 2006 college season, Stubbs played in 62 games, had 243 ABs, hit .342, .439 OBP, .580 SLG, 12 HRs, and stole 26 bases in 32 attempts.)

In 2004 and 2005, Stubbs played on Team USA in international competition. They played a 5 week schedule from July through August those years. "A two-time USA Baseball National Team member as well as Academic All-American, Stubbs was an integral part of Texas 2005 national title squad and helped the Americans capture a gold medal during the 2004 FISU Championships." In 2005 at Texas, Stubbs played 72 games, hit .311, had a .384 OBP, .527 SLG, 11 HRs, and stole 32 bases in 38 attempts. This year Stubbs has again kept playing ball after the college season. He signed quickly, and went to Billings.

3. He has to adjust to pro ball, wood bats, and playing every day. With aluminum, hitters own the inside part of the plate. Not so with wood. Granted, he didn't jump out and rip up the Pioneer League the way some have. However, he was coming around. Counting the playoffs, he hit over .300 and had much better power the last month of the season. His OPS went from .705 in July, to .807 in August, to .929 in September. (not counting the playoffs.) See THIS LINK (http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/app/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Drew%20Stubbs&pos=&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=453211)for Stubb's splits.

4. Small sample size. If he had 10 more hits at Billings, he would have hit .300. Pioneer League baseball is a classic 'small sample size' league. Also Stubbs has missed about 17 games, between his toe injury, his concussion from a collision in the outfield. Even then, Stubbs had a .368 OBP.

I remain optimisitic. I predict that Drew Stubbs will have a break-out season next year at Dayton.

jmcclain19
09-19-2006, 04:03 PM
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts..as the saying goes.

His patience is a good thing - and may bode well for a turnaround in the future.

Problem is good college hitters are supposed to skip Rookie ball or dominate, due to their advanced age, polish as a hitter and length of time playing baseball.

I had a Stubbs related post a month or so ago about this very topic, where I compared Stubbs to over 50 recent Reds players. The only people who really struggled lik Stubbs did were high school draftees and FA signings, not kids who've had 3 extra years of college ball to become a better hitter.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50707

I'm not hoping for his downfall. Heck knows the Reds can use every bit of good farm system news they can get. But I just have this feeling that Stubbs will get every chance in the world to succeed, and will end up taking the Reds money and going somewhere else to make a living.

traderumor
09-19-2006, 04:29 PM
Problem is good college hitters are supposed to skip Rookie ball or dominate, due to their advanced age, polish as a hitter and length of time playing baseball.That is a mighty broad brush to simply write off "ifs and buts" as you put it. I really don't think that is fair compared to some legitimate points made in the analysis of mbgrayson.

guttle11
09-19-2006, 04:59 PM
Until Stubbs has 1000 ABs in professional baseball it's too early to even make an educated guess.

cincyinco
09-19-2006, 08:18 PM
Once again folks, its way.. Way.. WAY to early to give up on Stubbs, and its still early to make a fair judgement against him. He didn't go "Evan Longoria" on rookie league, but he sure wasn't doing an impression of Matt Bush either.

Next year is when we can start forming a more valid opinion on Mr. Stubbs true abilities. Baseball is a game of patience. Try to excersize some.

Falls City Beer
09-19-2006, 08:51 PM
Once again folks, its way.. Way.. WAY to early to give up on Stubbs, and its still early to make a fair judgement against him. He didn't go "Evan Longoria" on rookie league, but he sure wasn't doing an impression of Matt Bush either.

Next year is when we can start forming a more valid opinion on Mr. Stubbs true abilities. Baseball is a game of patience. Try to excersize some.

If he were 19, I'd be 100% in your camp. But he's not, so I'm not.

johngalt
09-20-2006, 12:21 AM
Chris Valaika, Danny Dorn, Justin Turner and Logan Parker sure did a good job of hitting extremely well while adjusting to aluminum bats, the switch to pro ball and continuing to play after their college seasons.

Is it a small sample size? Sure. But years of history have shown that college players who struggle or perform somewhat below average in rookie leagues typically have trouble becoming Major League players.

mbgrayson
09-20-2006, 02:38 AM
Chris Valaika, Danny Dorn, Justin Turner and Logan Parker sure did a good job of hitting extremely well .....

I agree all of these guys hit well. These Mustangs were 4 of the top 11 in batting average and OBP in the entire Pioneer League. I like ALL of these guys.

But, at the risk of repetition, the following points:
1. These guys weren't hurt. All four played more games than Stubbs, even though a couple signed and started later. (Dorn and Turner only played one game in June, while Stubbs played 11.)
2. Counting the playoffs, the power production from these 4 and Stubbs is almost the same. Stubbs had 8 HRs, Dorn had 8, Valaika had 8, Turner had 6, and Parker had 9.
3. On base percentage: Stubbs .374, Valaika .387, Turner .411, Parker .425, and Dorn .457. Keep in mind that all 5 of these guys were in the top 25 in their league.
4. Stolen bases: Stubbs 19, Turner 12, Dorn 3, Valaika 2, and Parker 2.
5. Errors: Valaika 15, Turner 9, Parker 9, Stubbs 2, Dorn 1. (Stubbs and Dorn are outfielders, the other 3 play short, 2nd, and 1st respectively).
6. Walks: Parker 41, Dorn 36, Stubbs 32, Valaika 24, Turner 23.

The main problem Stubbs has continues to be strikeouts. That reduces his average and OBP compared to the other guys. Ks- Stubbs 64, Valaika 61, Parker 47, Turner 389, and Dorn 36.


But years of history have shown that college players who struggle or perform somewhat below average in rookie leagues typically have trouble becoming Major League players.

First of all, where is this proven? I have seen a lot of college players struggle in their first year, and then do just fine. Secondly, I don't agree that Stubbs performance was "below average". Maybe "below expectations", but it was not that bad. See above.

Current players and their 1st year pro numbers:
1. Justin Morneau in 1999: .302 avg/.333 OBP/0 HRs: Repeated rookie ball again in 2000 and thrived.
2. David Wright in 2001: .300 avg/.391 OBP/4 HRs. Only hit .266 in A ball the next year...
3. Lastings Milledge in 2003: .231 avg/.323 OBP/0 HRs.
4. Robinson Cano in 2001: .230 avg/.330 OBP/3 HRs.
5. Ryan Howard in 2001 .272 avg/.384/6 HRs
6. Jason Bay in 2000 .304 avg/.358 OBP/2 HRs
7. Edwin Encarnacion 2000: .311 avg/.381 OBP/0 HRs
8. Joey Votto 2002: .269 avg/.342 OBP/9 HRs
9. Carlos Lee in 1994: .125 avg/.183 OBP/0 HRs
10. Carlos Beltran in 1995: .278/.332/0 HRs
11. Adam Dunn in 1998 .288/.404/4 HRs
12. Barry Bonds in 1985 .299/.383/13
13. Sammy Sosa in 1986 .275/.336/4
14. Jim Thome in 1989 .237/.314/0
15. Drew Stubbs 2006 .258./.374/8

You get the point. You just can't always predict how a guy will do based on his first year in the pros. I know several of these guys did not play college ball. I agree that home run power often comes at a later age, and that few 18 year olds have pro power.

Still, my point is that only time tells the quality of the player.

jmcclain19
09-20-2006, 05:11 AM
First of all, where is this proven? I have seen a lot of college players struggle in their first year, and then do just fine. Secondly, I don't agree that Stubbs performance was "below average". Maybe "below expectations", but it was not that bad. See above.

Current players and their 1st year pro numbers:
1. Justin Morneau in 1999: .302 avg/.333 OBP/0 HRs: Repeated rookie ball again in 2000 and thrived.
2. David Wright in 2001: .300 avg/.391 OBP/4 HRs. Only hit .266 in A ball the next year...
3. Lastings Milledge in 2003: .231 avg/.323 OBP/0 HRs.
4. Robinson Cano in 2001: .230 avg/.330 OBP/3 HRs.
5. Ryan Howard in 2001 .272 avg/.384/6 HRs
6. Jason Bay in 2000 .304 avg/.358 OBP/2 HRs
7. Edwin Encarnacion 2000: .311 avg/.381 OBP/0 HRs
8. Joey Votto 2002: .269 avg/.342 OBP/9 HRs
9. Carlos Lee in 1994: .125 avg/.183 OBP/0 HRs
10. Carlos Beltran in 1995: .278/.332/0 HRs
11. Adam Dunn in 1998 .288/.404/4 HRs
12. Barry Bonds in 1985 .299/.383/13
13. Sammy Sosa in 1986 .275/.336/4
14. Jim Thome in 1989 .237/.314/0
15. Drew Stubbs 2006 .258./.374/8

You get the point. You just can't always predict how a guy will do based on his first year in the pros. I know several of these guys did not play college ball. I agree that home run power often comes at a later age, and that few 18 year olds have pro power.

Still, my point is that only time tells the quality of the player.

You're setting up your own strawman there.

The problem with all but four of the players you listed (Bay, Thome, Bonds, Stubbs) were either a high school player when drafted or was an undrafted free agent.

And the four
Bay - a 22nd rounder, skipped rookie ball.
Bonds - Skipped Rookie ball - then Played half a year a A ball before going to AAA.
Thome might as well be a high schooler, as he was a draft and follow who played one year of JC ball before signing. But yes, he did struggle at 19 in his first season at Rookie Ball.
Stubbs - 1st rounder with a mediocre start in Rookie Ball.

Which is the exact point I was making earlier and johngalt elaborated on.

"Polished" college bats should be ripping the cover of the ball in rookie league if they get placed in that league at all if they want to have any future. Most are deemed above that level and can move on to higher competition.

For immediate comparison, the only other college bat taken in the top ten, Evan Longoria, tore up Advanced A ball and leveled out at AA.

Just to further hammer this home. Lets look back a few years just to let some history develop. These are the top College draftable bats of the year, taken in the 1st round of that year's draft.

2002 Draft 1st Round College Bats
Drew Meyer - Skipped Rookie Ball - Started off in Low A where he OPS'd 593 - and he's been awful ever since. A career AAAA player.
Khalil Greene - Skipped Rookie Ball - Put up an OPS of 893 in High A in his first year.
Russ Adams - Skipped Rookie Ball - OPS'd 933 for Low A in his first year
Nick Swisher - Skipped Rookie Ball - Started in Low A with an OPS of 888.

2003 Draft 1st round College Bats
Rickie Weeks - Played 1 game at Rookie ball before moving to Low A to OPS 1050
Michael Aubrey - Skipped Rookie ball and went straight to Low A where he OPS'd 960.
Aaron Hill - Skipped Rookie Ball and went straight to Low A where he OPS'd 938.
Brian Anderson - Played 13 games at Rookie ball (and OPSing 1084 in 58PA) before moving on to High A and put up an OPS of 925.
Brad Snyder - Skipped Rookie Ball and went straight to Low A where he put up an OPS of 860
Conor Jackson - Skipped Rookie Ball where he moved onto High A and OPS'd 943

2004 Draft 1st round College Bats
Stephen Drew - Sat out a year, but when he came back, he skipped Rookie Ball and started at High A where he put up an OPS of 1224
Josh Fields - Skipped Rookie Ball - Started off at High A where he put up an OPS of 778
Landon Powell - Skipped Rookie Ball - Started off in Low A where he put up an OPS of 725
Richard Robnett - Skipped Rookie Ball - Started in Low A where he put up an OPS of 841

I don't think OPS is the end all be all of hitting stats, but it's a quick and dirty way to show batting eye & power.

The only players on there who started off with a 1st season OPS under 800 (like Stubbs 768) was Drew Meyer, who pretty much can't hit at any level now going on four years. Landon Powell, who was a catcher and didn't start out on fire a full level above Stubbs, and Josh Fields, who didn't play baseball full time until he was drafted, but still put up the same numbers as Stubbs two full levels above him.

The Rest, all put up better numbers, and they did it against better competition at a higher level.

Do I really need to keep going? There are reams and reams of this out there that keeps constantly pointing at the same ending.

If you don't hit in rookie ball as a college bat, your future is pretty bleak.

dabvu2498
09-20-2006, 09:13 AM
The problem with all but four of the players you listed (Bay, Thome, Bonds, Stubbs) were either a high school player when drafted or was an undrafted free agent.

Ryan Howard was a college player (SW Mizzou State). His 1st pro season was in the NY-Penn League (SS-A).

CrackerJack
09-20-2006, 10:19 AM
Awful draft pick. I want DanO back.

Falls City Beer
09-20-2006, 10:29 AM
Awful draft pick. I want DanO back.

Double irony?

Surely you don't think Stubbs was a good draft pick.

bradmu
09-20-2006, 11:58 AM
Awful draft pick. I want DanO back.

No Question about it, DanO did a great job with his drafts. I really would have liked to see him stick around the organization to be involved with scouting...I know that would never have happened, but thats where DanO belongs.


Just Curious, What did Alex Gordon do when he first signed with the Royals? I know he was a high College Bat selected recently who's one of the top prospects in baseball.

dougdirt
09-20-2006, 12:11 PM
Gordon didnt play in 2005, the year he was drafted, but this season he played in AA and hit 29 home runs, had 101 RBI, 72 walks, 113 k, .325/.427/.588 as a 22 year old.

flyer85
09-20-2006, 12:48 PM
Stubbs certainly still has time, the issue is that he did nothing to alleviate the concerns about his bat. He has a bunch of secondary skills but if he can't hit they won't be worth much.

They were questions about Longoria and his ability to hit for power. He quieted those concerns with his start in professional baseball.

At a minimum I think it is safe to say the Reds took Stubbs way too early in the draft. There was a lot better value available than a highly speculative pick like Stubbs.

BuckeyeRedleg
09-20-2006, 02:10 PM
Yes, I predict Stubbs will be a bust.

I also hope that I'm wrong and will be the first to point it out if I am.

But to answer the question, yes, at this time, I predict that the Stubbs selection will one day be considered a bust.

But drafts are a crapshoot anyway and if Valaika or one of the others pan out, it still can be a successful draft.

OnBaseMachine
09-20-2006, 06:41 PM
I like the fact that he has shown some good patience this season. That's a good sign. With that kind of patience he just needs to be able to hit about .250 with 20 homer power to be an effective player once you factor in his great fielding in CF.

Mike Cameron.

And I would be very happy if Stubbs were able to produce at that type of level.

Patrick Bateman
09-20-2006, 07:03 PM
Mike Cameron.

And I would be very happy if Stubbs were able to produce at that type of level.

Exactly.

cincyinco
09-20-2006, 08:28 PM
If he were 19, I'd be 100% in your camp. But he's not, so I'm not.

Regardless of age FCB, a Short Season in rookie ball is a very small sample size. Its still way to early to write Stubbs off and thats the bottom line.

This is not a prediction that he will have any future success. Simply saying wait 'til next year before you proclaim Stubbs a bust.

This is about the 10th thread on this subject.. Its getting rediculous. You know, about this time last year, some were calling Homer Bailey a bust too. How's he looking now?

jmcclain19
09-20-2006, 09:08 PM
This is about the 10th thread on this subject.. Its getting rediculous.


Anything worth doing, is worth doing right

johngalt
09-21-2006, 01:08 AM
Mike Cameron.

And I would be very happy if Stubbs were able to produce at that type of level.

Funny to bring up Mike Cameron (definitely a good comp based on skillset IMO) because he's one of the few guys whose history gives Stubbs hopes of turning into someone useful as a Major League regular.

After being drafted out of high school, Cameron didn't hit over .250 for a full season until he repeated AA in 1996 - his sixth pro season. In fact, none of his statistics (walks, K rate, average, homers, RBIs, OPS) were even above average until then, meaning all anyone had to go on was his talent and skills and hoping they would eventually allow him to turn it on.

Something obviously clicked because in that '96 season, he hit .300/.402/.600 as a 23-year-old in the Southern League with 28 homers, 77 RBIs, and 39 steals. He still struck out over 100 times (117), but his walk total vaulted up to 71 at the same time. After a cup of coffee in September of that year, he only spent 30 games in AAA the following season before ascending to the majors for good.

Certainly, I would be ecstatic to have Stubbs turn into Cameron on the Major League level. I'd say that's probably his ceiling actually. It's just interesting when you look back to Cameron and see how rare and unique his career was in terms of early minor league production and how it related to his work in the bigs.

Again, it's difficult to compare since we're talking a high school player vs. a college player, who theoretically should be more advanced. However, I do find the potential parallel interesting.

johngalt
09-21-2006, 01:13 AM
This is about the 10th thread on this subject.. Its getting rediculous. You know, about this time last year, some were calling Homer Bailey a bust too. How's he looking now?

Calling a pitcher drafted out of high school pitching his first full season in the Midwest League a bust because his numbers are skewed by a tandem pitching rotation is definitely ridiculous.

Calling a three-year college player drafted in the top 10 a potential bust based on his mediocre numbers in the Pioneer League is far from ridiculous. It's making an educated guess based on loads of previous data.

WMR
09-21-2006, 02:50 AM
What sort of an arm does Drew project to have in the MLs?

LoganBuck
09-21-2006, 08:20 AM
What sort of an arm does Drew project to have in the MLs?

+ arm

texasdave
09-21-2006, 09:52 AM
One could almost throw a certain Minnesota Twin first rounder into that mix. In Torii Hunter's first year of pro ball (rookie league) he OPS'd a slick .503. Two years later in high A ball his in over 400 plate appearances his OPS was .678. At age 22 in his second go around in AA he OPS'd .643. He didn't OPS over .800 at any level until the age of 23. Maybe that's what Wayne Krivsky sees when he looks at Drew Stubbs - another Torii Hunter.

BuckeyeRedleg
09-21-2006, 11:37 AM
Funny to bring up Mike Cameron (definitely a good comp based on skillset IMO) because he's one of the few guys whose history gives Stubbs hopes of turning into someone useful as a Major League regular.

After being drafted out of high school, Cameron didn't hit over .250 for a full season until he repeated AA in 1996 - his sixth pro season. In fact, none of his statistics (walks, K rate, average, homers, RBIs, OPS) were even above average until then, meaning all anyone had to go on was his talent and skills and hoping they would eventually allow him to turn it on.

Something obviously clicked because in that '96 season, he hit .300/.402/.600 as a 23-year-old in the Southern League with 28 homers, 77 RBIs, and 39 steals. He still struck out over 100 times (117), but his walk total vaulted up to 71 at the same time. After a cup of coffee in September of that year, he only spent 30 games in AAA the following season before ascending to the majors for good.

Certainly, I would be ecstatic to have Stubbs turn into Cameron on the Major League level. I'd say that's probably his ceiling actually. It's just interesting when you look back to Cameron and see how rare and unique his career was in terms of early minor league production and how it related to his work in the bigs.

Again, it's difficult to compare since we're talking a high school player vs. a college player, who theoretically should be more advanced. However, I do find the potential parallel interesting.

I agree. It would be nice if Stubbs is anything close to Cameron, but if it took him 6 years, he'd be in another organization as a minor league FA before he reaches that potential.

No thanks.

Falls City Beer
09-21-2006, 12:09 PM
But Cameron was a bona fide athlete, Stubbs is a hustle-to-make-it small guy who's not likely to sharpen his physical gifts much more. What you're seeing now from Stubbs is likely what you're going to get.

puca
09-21-2006, 12:10 PM
The magic 8 ball says....ask again later.

LoganBuck
09-21-2006, 12:35 PM
But Cameron was a bona fide athlete, Stubbs is a hustle-to-make-it small guy who's not likely to sharpen his physical gifts much more. What you're seeing now from Stubbs is likely what you're going to get.

6-4 200lbs. Not exactly a little guy. Stubbs can run, and throw, and has power. His stance and swing supposedly need some work. Lets see what he does next year after instructional ball.

flyer85
09-21-2006, 12:36 PM
Stubbs is a hustle-to-make-it small guy listed at 6'5" and 190. Cameron 6'2" and 190.

While I am not enamored with Stubbs I have never seen his athletic ability or secondary skills questioned in the least.

The only question is will he hit?

BRM
09-21-2006, 12:37 PM
nm

westofyou
09-21-2006, 12:38 PM
But Cameron was a bona fide athlete, Stubbs is a hustle-to-make-it small guy who's not likely to sharpen his physical gifts much more. What you're seeing now from Stubbs is likely what you're going to get.

A four-sport athlete in high school, Stubbs said he was also recruited to play college football but was most passionate about playing baseball.

Plus he's 6' 4"

He must hustle greatly to achieve the above.

Falls City Beer
09-21-2006, 12:39 PM
6-4 200lbs. Not exactly a little guy. Stubbs can run, and throw, and has power. His stance and swing supposedly need some work. Lets see what he does next year after instructional ball.

He has power?

First I've heard that skill set mentioned in him. Guys can physically change after age 23, but not much.

He sounds like Podsednik. Not Cameron, who was not only athletic but growing into his frame at the time of his breakout. The power developed and everything took off for him. If you're waiting for Stubbs's power to emerge, go ahead and wait for Godot.

dabvu2498
09-21-2006, 12:40 PM
But Cameron was a bona fide athlete, Stubbs is a hustle-to-make-it small guy who's not likely to sharpen his physical gifts much more.

Stubbs listed at Texas this year at 6'4 175 lbs. Cameron's ESPN card says 6'2 200 lbs.

Not sure how much you've seen Stubbs play, but he's pretty fast, has good athletic instincts and appears to have more physical gifts than you're acquiting him of.

westofyou
09-21-2006, 12:40 PM
He has power?

First I've heard that skill set mentioned in him. Guys can physically change after age 23, but not much.

Baseball America rated Stubbs as the best college athlete and best defensive player in this year's draft and the second fastest baserunner and third-best power hitter.

dabvu2498
09-21-2006, 12:42 PM
Would Johnny Damon with an arm be worth a 1st round draft pick???

texasdave
09-21-2006, 12:45 PM
But Cameron was a bona fide athlete, Stubbs is a hustle-to-make-it small guy who's not likely to sharpen his physical gifts much more. What you're seeing now from Stubbs is likely what you're going to get.

I am not sure where you get this from. Below is the Baseball America scouting report on Drew Stubbs. (I tried several times to post the link but failed miserably. So copy and paste it is.) But he is neither small (6'5" 190 per Milb.com) nor unathletic(see below). It may eventually turn out to be that what we are seeing is what we will get. But it looks as though there is plenty of room for improvement.

Round Overall Team Player School State Bonus
1 8 CIN Drew Stubbs Texas TX $2,000,000
Stubbs was considered a borderline first-round talent coming out of high school in 2003. He would have signed with the Astros for $900,000 as a third-rounder if Major League Baseball hadn't persuaded Houston owner Drayton McLane not to exceed its bonus recommendation. Had he turned pro then, scouts wouldn't have to fret over his bat now. The best athlete in college baseball, Stubbs is a potential Gold Glove center fielder with plus raw power, plus-plus speed and an average arm. Though he has improved his approach and is using the whole field more as a junior, scouts believe his bat is far from a sure thing. He has struck out roughly once a game throughout his Longhorns career, and his contact rate hasn't improved this spring. He also hit a soft .304 with wood bats while on Team USA last summer. He still ranks second behind only Evan Longoria among position prospects in 2006. In last year's draft, which was much deeper in hitters, Stubbs would have lasted until the late first round. But with a scarcity of position players this year, he could go as high as No. 6 overall to the Tigers and probably won't get past the top 10 picks.

Falls City Beer
09-21-2006, 12:46 PM
Would Johnny Damon with an arm be worth a 1st round draft pick???


But that's not the question; the question is: is a Johnny Damon-ceiling (absolute ceiling) longshot worth the first pick in the first round?

No is the answer to that question for me.

westofyou
09-21-2006, 12:47 PM
I am not sure where you get this from.

I'm betting nowhere. FCB, did you hear about Ryan Freel, big guy, all power. :p:

dabvu2498
09-21-2006, 12:48 PM
Guys can physically change after age 23, but not much.

Good thing he's still a couple weeks away from turning 22 then, huh?

Falls City Beer
09-21-2006, 12:49 PM
I am not sure where you get this from. Below is the Baseball America scouting report on Drew Stubbs. (I tried several times to post the link but failed miserably. So copy and paste it is.) But he is neither small (6'5" 190 per Milb.com) nor unathletic(see below). It may eventually turn out to be that what we are seeing is what we will get. But it looks as though there is plenty of room for improvement.

Round Overall Team Player School State Bonus
1 8 CIN Drew Stubbs Texas TX $2,000,000
Stubbs was considered a borderline first-round talent coming out of high school in 2003. He would have signed with the Astros for $900,000 as a third-rounder if Major League Baseball hadn't persuaded Houston owner Drayton McLane not to exceed its bonus recommendation. Had he turned pro then, scouts wouldn't have to fret over his bat now. The best athlete in college baseball, Stubbs is a potential Gold Glove center fielder with plus raw power, plus-plus speed and an average arm. Though he has improved his approach and is using the whole field more as a junior, scouts believe his bat is far from a sure thing. He has struck out roughly once a game throughout his Longhorns career, and his contact rate hasn't improved this spring. He also hit a soft .304 with wood bats while on Team USA last summer. He still ranks second behind only Evan Longoria among position prospects in 2006. In last year's draft, which was much deeper in hitters, Stubbs would have lasted until the late first round. But with a scarcity of position players this year, he could go as high as No. 6 overall to the Tigers and probably won't get past the top 10 picks.

The guy's a wiry 6' 5" with a dearth of wooden-bat pop. Plus, he's done virtually all of the physical maturing he's going to do. To compare Stubbs' physique and athleticism to Cameron's is a joke.

Falls City Beer
09-21-2006, 12:50 PM
Good thing he's still a couple weeks away from turning 22 then, huh?

22-23...Human body's done almost all of its maturing by 21.

westofyou
09-21-2006, 12:50 PM
The guy's a wiry 6' 5" with a dearth of wooden-bat pop. Plus, he's done virtually all of the physical maturing he's going to do. To compare Stubbs' physique and athleticism to Cameron's is a joke.

Your analysis of the guy started out with he was over 23, small and had no power, that's kinda funny too eh?

Falls City Beer
09-21-2006, 12:51 PM
I'm betting nowhere. FCB, did you hear about Ryan Freel, big guy, all power. :p:

I love Freel. Not sure I'd waste my first pick on the guy.

Patrick Bateman
09-21-2006, 01:19 PM
Stubbs=Podsenik?????

That's not a very good comparison.

Stubbs has immense power potential and better patience. Podsenik has no power to speak of. Podsenik is a huge basestealer. And although Stubbs is very fast, he will never be the basestealer that Podsednik is.

Stubbs has every single tool neccessary tool to be a Mike Cameron player. He's athletic enough, he has a potential gold glove winner, great arm, good patience, poor contact skills, and good power potential.

He's very raw and that's the only question with Stubbs. If everything clicks he could be a very special CF, but as many know the chances of everything clicking is poor. That's the problem with Stubbs. High risk, high reward.

Falls City Beer
09-21-2006, 01:26 PM
Stubbs=Podsenik?????

That's not a very good comparison.

Stubbs has immense power potential and better patience. Podsenik has no power to speak of. Podsenik is a huge basestealer. And although Stubbs is very fast, he will never be the basestealer that Podsednik is.

Stubbs has every single tool neccessary tool to be a Mike Cameron player. He's athletic enough, he has a potential gold glove winner, great arm, good patience, poor contact skills, and good power potential.

He's very raw and that's the only question with Stubbs. If everything clicks he could be a very special CF, but as many know the chances of everything clicking is poor. That's the problem with Stubbs. High risk, high reward.


From what I understand Stubbs has aluminum-power.

BuckeyeRedleg
09-21-2006, 02:32 PM
From what I understand Stubbs has aluminum-power.

Don't we all.

redsupport
09-21-2006, 04:03 PM
not the epic Chad Motolla

fearofpopvol1
09-23-2006, 09:31 PM
The more and more I continue to read scouting reports on Stubbs, the more I'm disappointed. Surely, given the Reds drafting spot...they could've done better.

Az. Reds Fan
09-24-2006, 01:06 PM
The more and more I continue to read scouting reports on Stubbs, the more I'm disappointed. Surely, given the Reds drafting spot...they could've done better.

Yup, two words.....Tim.....Lincecum.

TC81190
09-24-2006, 08:45 PM
But that's not the question; the question is: is a Johnny Damon-ceiling (absolute ceiling) longshot worth the first pick in the first round?

No is the answer to that question for me.

Maybe, but not when Roy Oswalt is on the board.

TeamSelig
09-25-2006, 12:44 PM
Wow. Sounds like someone just needs to just give up and admit their defeat.

mbgrayson
09-26-2006, 01:45 AM
No. 1 pick Stubbs pays visit to ballpark
By Hal McCoy

Staff Writer

Sunday, September 24, 2006

CINCINNATI — Drew Stubbs was in Great American Ball Park on Saturday, ostensibly to watch the Cincinnati Reds take batting practice, but when rain washed it away, he stood in the clubhouse talking to writers about his first professional baseball season at Billings (Mont.) in the Pioneer Rookie League.

Stubbs was the Reds' No. 1 draft pick in June out of the University of Texas, and the 21-year-old outfielder hit .252 in 56 games for a team stuffed with .300 hitters that finished first in both halves of the season.

"It was a time of adjustment for me," he said. "Coming out of college, playing three or four games a week, to playing every day. And switching from aluminum bats to wood bats, adjusting to that, that's what I took away from this season."

Stubbs, a speedy defensive outfielder, stole 19 bases, hit six homers and drove in 24 runs.

"I was able to cope with my first year of pro ball and took away a lot from that," he said. "I heard so many stories about pro ball from guys I played with in college, so I had a pretty good idea of what it would be like, and they gave me a pretty accurate description of what it was like."

Of his first year's performance, Stubbs said, "I had to adjust to the grind of playing every day. I know the first couple of weeks it was rough, and you could feel the toll being put on your body. But you could feel the adaptation as the year went on.

"Rather than going in with any statistical goals, I just went in realizing that this is just the start to my pro career and I wasn't going to make the big leagues in my first summer."

Stubbs was scheduled to leave for Sarasota, Fla., today to attend the instructional league for a month.

"I'll get more at-bats and work more on my hitting than defense," he said. "Just a time to get more experience and more at-bats."

My final word on Stubbs for now: He will do well and turn out to be a good draft pick.

jmcclain19
09-26-2006, 03:24 AM
My final word on Stubbs for now: He will do well and turn out to be a good draft pick.

For the Reds sake, I hope I'm wrong and your right.

edabbs44
09-26-2006, 01:49 PM
From what I understand Stubbs has aluminum-power.

So did Balboni.

fearofpopvol1
10-08-2006, 01:48 AM
For the Reds sake, I hope I'm wrong and your right.

Ditto!

fearofpopvol1
07-10-2007, 03:39 PM
9 months later, it's not looking so great thus far.

Redmachine2003
07-10-2007, 10:19 PM
9 months later, it's not looking so great thus far.
There are some good along with the bad. The Bad is 90 Strike outs and only a slugging % of around .350. come on if your going to strike out that much at least take some good hacks. The .250 batting avg, again if your not going to hit for power at least be a guy who bunts, gets the little flares over the infield and makes the pitcher work, you know be scrappy :D
The Good 48 walks and a OBP of .350 plus. 19 SBs. I know everyone wanted to see that 5 tool player but if he continues to improve his walk to strike out ratio gets that avg up to .275 he might make a good lead off hitter. We already have Bruce and Votto coming up to be the middle of the order guys along with Hamilton we also need some table sitters too.

M2
07-11-2007, 01:19 PM
It's interesting that people keep coming up with high schoolers as comps for Stubbs.

I've looked around for a quality major leaguer who's a comp for Stubbs - drafted after three years in college with a .730ish OPS at relatively low levels through his first year of pro ball - and I can't find one. Stubbs is off to an extremely inauspicious start.

Maybe Stubbs will bust out and do something unique, but, in general, guys who are playing the way Stubbs is playing don't go on to become productive major leaguers.

westofyou
07-11-2007, 01:42 PM
Maybe Stubbs will bust out and do something unique, but, in general, guys who are playing the way Stubbs is playing don't go on to become productive major leaguers.

He's Reggie Tayloresque

edabbs44
07-11-2007, 03:59 PM
It's interesting that people keep coming up with high schoolers as comps for Stubbs.

I've looked around for a quality major leaguer who's a comp for Stubbs - drafted after three years in college with a .730ish OPS at relatively low levels through his first year of pro ball - and I can't find one. Stubbs is off to an extremely inauspicious start.

Maybe Stubbs will bust out and do something unique, but, in general, guys who are playing the way Stubbs is playing don't go on to become productive major leaguers.

So is it time to deal him for another prospect (if possible), hoping that another team still believes in him?

M2
07-11-2007, 05:15 PM
So is it time to deal him for another prospect (if possible), hoping that another team still believes in him?

I'd prefer to use him in a prospects for major leaguer deal. It's not that I don't think Stubbs has any chance of making it, it's just that he's off to a poor enough start that I'd let another organization figure out the answer to the question.

Mind you, Stubbs' value is probably exceedingly low right now, so the argument for keeping him might be that you can't sell him high enough. Anyway, if there was a major league player the Reds could get in trade and the other team insisted on an OF prospect and was willing to settle on Stubbs after being told a hundred times that Jay Bruce is untouchable, I'd move Stubbs without batting an eye.

AmarilloRed
07-11-2007, 07:27 PM
Stubbs was drafted eight overall and expected to be a five-tool guy. Given that, the expectations are that he needs to show that potential, and anything less makes him a bust.His minor league career has gotten off to a bad start, but he is still capable of becoming a major league player. He simply needs to become the best player Drew Stubbs can be, not the best player he is expected to be. He has a lot of work to do on his game, but he is still capable of being a good player

TC81190
07-12-2007, 12:21 AM
I'm so glad we have Bubba Crosby 2 instead of Tim Lincecum, who is already starting in the bigs today.

dougdirt
07-12-2007, 12:55 AM
:bang::angry::bang::angry:
:bang::angry::bang::bang:
:bang::angry::angry::angry:
:bang::bang::bang::bang:
:angry::angry::angry::angry:
:bang::bang::bang::angry:
:angry::angry::bang::bang:
:angry::angry::bang::bang:
:bang::angry::angry::angry:
:angry::bang::angry::bang:
:angry::bang::angry::bang::angry:

Falls City Beer
07-12-2007, 01:20 AM
:bang::angry::bang::angry:
:bang::angry::bang::bang:
:bang::angry::angry::angry:
:bang::bang::bang::bang:
:angry::angry::angry::angry:
:bang::bang::bang::angry:
:angry::angry::bang::bang:
:angry::angry::bang::bang:
:bang::angry::angry::angry:
:angry::bang::angry::bang:
:angry::bang::angry::bang::angry:

I take it you're a Bubba Crosby fan? :)

Cooper
07-13-2007, 07:33 PM
Move him.

The only way he makes it is if he completely changes his approach to Brett Butler type of a hitter. Guys who are that big -probably can't do it. To all the folks who said he was a bad pick --you folks were right on. Trade him now while someone thinks he may be worth something.

He never had an explosive swing where he put it together --his swing looked disjointed when he was drafted --and a fiar amount of folks on this site said so....maybe you can re-train the body when a player is 17 ( ireally doubt it)....but these guys have been hitting for 15-20 years. That muscle memory doesn't go away. By the time the guy is 20 -21 years old --he is what he is. Every stupid organization in baseball believes they can re-teach the player to have explosive dynamics. That ain't possible. It doesn't happen at 21.

Also, there's some really good sabermetric stuff beling done to convert college stats. Did the Reds even consider loking at that?

klw
07-16-2007, 12:35 PM
How does he comp with Jacoby Ellsbury in terms of skills, etc?

dougdirt
07-16-2007, 12:40 PM
How does he comp with Jacoby Ellsbury in terms of skills, etc?

Ellsbury is a slap hitter. Stubbs, when healthy is view more as a power hitter. Drew has hit some monster home runs this season, just it has been few and far between (although I, at least, am willing to give him a pass on the season because of his turf toe). Both are very fast, athlete types. Drew plays better defense though.

Prf15
07-16-2007, 12:49 PM
I still have hope for him because of his plate discipline. I will be interested to see what he does next year when healthy because turf toe is a bugger.

Triples
07-16-2007, 01:25 PM
I agree turf toe is more painful than most folks give it credit for. But.... if the turf toe is the reason why he is hitting so poorly, wouldn't it make sense to put him on the DL and let him get healthy instead of putting him out there with a health issue that that is altering/inhibiting his playing ability. It seems to me that he may very well be developing bad habits that could be difficult to fix once the toe is better, bet this year or next. Teams put guys on the DL for less than turf toe and if that is the reason for his poor performance then it must hurt like h*@%.


I still have hope for him because of his plate discipline. I will be interested to see what he does next year when healthy because turf toe is a bugger.

dougdirt
07-16-2007, 01:31 PM
I agree turf toe is more painful than most folks give it credit for. But.... if the turf toe is the reason why he is hitting so poorly, wouldn't it make sense to put him on the DL and let him get healthy instead of putting him out there with a health issue that that is altering/inhibiting his playing ability. It seems to me that he may very well be developing bad habits that could be difficult to fix once the toe is better, bet this year or next. Teams put guys on the DL for less than turf toe and if that is the reason for his poor performance then it must hurt like h*@%.

Ive been saying that if the reason he is hitting poorly (and I think that arguement could easily be made) that he should get the surgery done now and get healthy. I however can see the otherside of the arguement that you want to get him as many at bats and see as many pitches as possible during the season if the problem can be taken care of in the offseason. I am with you on the developing bad habits thing though.

Highlifeman21
07-16-2007, 11:31 PM
Drews Stubbs is to Reds' position prospects as Ty Howington or Chris Gruler is to Reds' pitching prospects.

Drew Stubbs is one of the worst Reds' draft picks in recent memory and will amount to exactly nothing.

Great D, absolutely no stick.

dougdirt
07-16-2007, 11:37 PM
Drews Stubbs is to Reds' position prospects as Ty Howington or Chris Gruler is to Reds' pitching prospects.

Drew Stubbs is one of the worst Reds' draft picks in recent memory and will amount to exactly nothing.

Great D, absolutely no stick.

Glad that you have given up on a player after 400 at bats. I will take my chances on the other side of 'exactly nothing'.

We as Reds fans have yet to see Drew Stubbs hit while being close to healthy since he came to the system. Next year will be the year for Stubbs to prove his worth.

icehole3
07-18-2007, 08:06 AM
Drews Stubbs is to Reds' position prospects as Ty Howington or Chris Gruler is to Reds' pitching prospects.

Drew Stubbs is one of the worst Reds' draft picks in recent memory and will amount to exactly nothing.

Great D, absolutely no stick.

It seems as though his bat is going pretty good right now, you wanna take back the no stick part?

PuffyPig
07-18-2007, 01:24 PM
Drews Stubbs is to Reds' position prospects as Ty Howington or Chris Gruler is to Reds' pitching prospects.




Both of Howington and Gruler were done in by injuries.

Both were premier prospects.

fearofpopvol1
09-13-2007, 02:34 AM
Do those who previously thought he would be a bust still think he will be?

His 2nd half looked a lot better than his first. I was certainly encouraged by that, but it's still too early to tell I guess.

Does anyone have readily available stats on how the draft picks before Stubbs in last year's draft have panned out thus far?

Betterread
09-14-2007, 12:41 AM
Stubbs' 2007 season:
Pros: Moved up a level, and slightly improved his production over 2006.
He stayed healthy and earned a promotion to High A.
Cons: He did not dominate his level, and displayed the same propensities in his game (high Ks, tendency to offensive slumps, high walks, good power) indicating that improvement over his weaknesses was slight.
Prediction: He will need 2-3 years of continued improvement and good health before we know what we have. I think he has the athletic ability and the leadership to be a really good player. I question his ability to make adjustments.

AmarilloRed
09-14-2007, 02:19 AM
Do those who previously thought he would be a bust still think he will be?

His 2nd half looked a lot better than his first. I was certainly encouraged by that, but it's still too early to tell I guess.

Does anyone have readily available stats on how the draft picks before Stubbs in last year's draft have panned out thus far?

I previously thought he would be a bust, but I have seen him play much better this year. I suppose it all depends on what you mean as a bust. Is he a bust if he fails to make the Reds, or is he a bust if he fails to become a starting outfielder. It really is hard to determine at this point how successful he will be down the line, but he has shown us all this year some hope for the future.

edabbs44
09-14-2007, 09:05 AM
Do those who previously thought he would be a bust still think he will be?

His 2nd half looked a lot better than his first. I was certainly encouraged by that, but it's still too early to tell I guess.

Does anyone have readily available stats on how the draft picks before Stubbs in last year's draft have panned out thus far?

Quick rundown.

1) Hochevar: In the show as a Sept call-up. Midseason BA "just missed the top 25 prospect list".

2) Reynolds: Shoulder surgery. Was ripping up AA through 8 starts before the injury.

3) Longoria: Leaving carnage at every level...made it to AAA this year. Midseason BA #4 prospect.

4) Lincoln: TJ surgery this past April

5) Morrow: 56 games with the Mariners this season

6) Miller: Was in between the majors and minors all season

7) Kershaw: Performed very well in Low A and had a late season call up to AA, where he threw pretty well in 5 games. BA midseason #6 prospect.

8) Stubbs: Low A all year.

M2
09-14-2007, 01:00 PM
9) Bill Rowell - .761 OPS in low A (Sally League), though he's only 18

10) Tim Lincecum - Thriving in the majors

11) Max Scherzer - 3.28 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 10.52 K/9, spent most of the season in AA (Southern League)

12) Kasey Kiker - 2.90 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, 10.46 K/9, low A (MWL), ege 19

13) Tyler Colvin - .812 OPS splitting time between high A (FSL) and AA (SL)

14) Travis Snider - .902 OPS (MWL), age 19

15) Chris Marrero - .822 OPS between low A (SAL) and high A (CAR)

16) Jeremy Jeffress - 3.13 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, 9.90 K/9, low A (SAL), age 19, 50-game suspension for drugs (don't know if it's for recreational or performance-enhancing drugs)

17) Matt Antonelli - .894 OPS in high A (CAL) and AA (TL)

18) Kyle Drabek - 4.33 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 7.67 K/9, low A (SAL), TJ surgery in August, age 19

19) Brett Sinkbeil - 3.42 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 5.58 K/9, high A (FSL)

20) Chris Parmelee - .727 OPS in low A (MWL), age 19

21) Ian Kennedy - 1.91 ERA, 0.96 WHIP, 10.03 K/9 in high A, AA and AAA, now starting for New York Yankees during playoff push (1.89 ERA in 3 starts)

dougdirt
09-14-2007, 01:07 PM
Jeffress was suspended for recreational drug use, not PED.

edabbs44
09-14-2007, 01:18 PM
Jeffress was suspended for recreational drug use, not PED.

Doug: I know it's been hashed out many times on the board, but after looking at the list above, would you think Stubbs has been the biggest disappointment on the field so far of the first 22 picks?

M2
09-14-2007, 01:35 PM
Doug: I know it's been hashed out many times on the board, but after looking at the list above, would you think Stubbs has been the biggest disappointment on the field so far of the first 22 picks?

Though you asked Doug, I'll take a crack at it: No.

Reynolds' shoulder surgery is a huge blow. Sinkbeil looks like a non-prospect. Parmelee's a DH in the field who doesn't hit well.

Yet the worst of the crop looks to be Drabek. His stuff wasn't very good from the moment he got drafted (no juice = no stuff?) and now he's injured. He might have to shift to 2B sooner rather than later. Plus, he came into last year's draft with an enormous Milo slapped on his head.

I'd say Stubbs has only been the fifth most disappointing debut. Hochevar's been pretty bad too (despite the major league toe dip). Lincoln's surgery and Jeffress' suspension (chronic?) are definitive setbacks. I also still like Stubbs better than Colvin, who played better at higher levels, but is devoid of OB skills.

dougdirt
09-14-2007, 01:55 PM
edabbs, no I don't think Stubbs has been the biggest disappointment. He surely hasn't been the best player, but he surely hasnt been the worst.

M2, I wonder how long Drabeks arm was bothering him.... when I was watching his draft video I didn't like his mechanics, as he was getting his throwing elbow up over his shoulder before coming forward.... something I don't like at all with pitchers. Like you said though, he could have been drafted fairly high as a hitter, so a switch to batter would not be an out of the blue thing if the pitching thing doesn't work out for him.

Maybe its just rumors, but I heard that Jeffress was found with some illegal drug of choice in ST and was told to not do it again, then he tested positive for it later, so its something you might want to keep a real close eye on.

M2
09-14-2007, 02:35 PM
edabbs, no I don't think Stubbs has been the biggest disappointment. He surely hasn't been the best player, but he surely hasnt been the worst.

M2, I wonder how long Drabeks arm was bothering him.... when I was watching his draft video I didn't like his mechanics, as he was getting his throwing elbow up over his shoulder before coming forward.... something I don't like at all with pitchers. Like you said though, he could have been drafted fairly high as a hitter, so a switch to batter would not be an out of the blue thing if the pitching thing doesn't work out for him.

Maybe its just rumors, but I heard that Jeffress was found with some illegal drug of choice in ST and was told to not do it again, then he tested positive for it later, so its something you might want to keep a real close eye on.

I didn't like Drabek's mechanics either. Combine that with his size, the PED allegations and his general loutish behavior and he stuck out as the Most Likely to Fail from last year's first round. He hasn't disappointed one bit.

If Jeffress is just a stoner, I wouldn't be overly worried. I knew a lot of stoners at that age, some of whom who are now aerospace engineers, and I'm guessing still stoners. If it's something more sinister then you definitely have to wonder if he's heading the way of Jeff Allison.

As for Stubbs, he's caught, like everybody else in the top nine, in the shadow of Tim Lincecum. Yet Scherzer, Snider and Antonelli aren't doing him any favors either. Not only was there the pocket superman (Lincecum), but there was a traditional collegiate power arm (Scherzer), a more offensively complete HS OF (Snider) and a better college player (Antonelli) on the board. Obviously their relative rankings could change in the coming years, but I've found that it's a lot easier to win a race when you've got a head start.

Stubbs could still materialize into a player, though if the Reds were doing a self-assessment I'd think they'd have to conclude that given a chance to do it all over again, Drew Stubbs would not be their pick.

dougdirt
09-14-2007, 05:46 PM
Well from what I have heard, and from several good sources, Jeffress is indeed dealing with something much less sinister than that of a Jeff Allison. Everyone is caught in the TL shadow for now, as well, he has been flat out dominant at times.... in the major leagues. I have a feeling the Reds would not make the same pick as they did, but I still feel Stubbs would go in the top 15 because of everything he brings to the table.

kcjones
09-14-2007, 08:13 PM
He lives in my hometown...Helped my son this year in baseball. Seems to be a good guy but not good enough of a baseball player.
This is a typical remark from someone in his hometown. I have never heard any good remarks from hometowners about an athlete's potential ability. They always want to put them down like they don't deserve to be where they are, that they're not that good. How do you know? Are you a professional? Most locals don't know talent when they see it.

edabbs44
09-14-2007, 10:51 PM
I have a feeling the Reds would not make the same pick as they did, but I still feel Stubbs would go in the top 15 because of everything he brings to the table.

15 might be a stretch...don't forget there are a few big names who went after the 1st round (Brett Anderson, Lars Anderson, Joba).

dougdirt
09-15-2007, 12:20 AM
15 might be a stretch...don't forget there are a few big names who went after the 1st round (Brett Anderson, Lars Anderson, Joba).

I didn't forget. Scouts like Stubbs a lot, and I think people took notice of his second half.

paulrichjr
09-15-2007, 11:10 AM
This is a typical remark from someone in his hometown. I have never heard any good remarks from hometowners about an athlete's potential ability. They always want to put them down like they don't deserve to be where they are, that they're not that good. How do you know? Are you a professional? Most locals don't know talent when they see it.

Actually in my quote I was talking about Stubby Clapp not Stubbs. The reason I know that he wasn't quiet good enough is because he played something like 20 games in his entire big league career and is now coaching. That pretty much sums it up. By the way it has been my experience with the professionals in my area that most people think they are much better than they actually are. I hear people say stuff like best fastball I have ever seen. Hits the ball a mile....etc... When true competition comes the bloom is usually off of the flower fairly quickly. By the way Weathers lives less than an hour from me...He appears to have a great future as a "lights out" closer for the team in Cincinnati. :D

edabbs44
09-15-2007, 11:18 AM
I didn't forget. Scouts like Stubbs a lot, and I think people took notice of his second half.

Maybe, but I'm not sure how someone could be overly excited about his second half in the grand scheme. It's still Low A ball, anyway you look at it and he'll be 23 in a few weeks.

dougdirt
09-15-2007, 05:12 PM
Becuase it showed that his potential may be moving from potential to talent.

redsmetz
09-15-2007, 05:20 PM
Becuase it showed that his potential may be moving from potential to talent.

I was curious to see where Votto was at this age. He turned 23 at the end of the 2005 season, so he played at AA while he was 23, but he was also in his 5th year as a pro. Stubbs just completed his 2nd year. Obviously coming out of college, he's a little older, but I'm not overly concerned. I'd like to see him make significant progress next year though.

camisadelgolf
09-16-2007, 06:45 PM
What all the Stubbs defenders seem to have forgotten is what the Reds said in the press conference when Drew Stubbs was drafted:


"Drew Stubbs will be a contact hitter, and he will require almost no time in the Minor Leagues. Please have no patience with his development because not only do we expect him to be in AAA for nearly all of 2007, we think he will be an NL MVP in 2008. This is due to his college program, draft slot, and the ensuing performances of those drafted around him. The last thing we want is for him to get comfortable with making adjustments at the Minor League level as opposed to the Major League level because if he slumps at higher levels, we can put the 'bust' tag on him more quickly, thus making it more resourceful to release him sooner than later. Not only that, but if he is discovered not to be a bust, it is imperative that we accelerate his arbitration clock. This whole procedure allows us to focus our attention on younger, less talented individuals with better Minor League numbers (which always translates to Major League success) and spend less time on attempting to mold one of the most physically-gifted people in baseball into a solid Major League Baseball player."

Aronchis
09-16-2007, 06:59 PM
What all the Stubbs defenders seem to have forgotten is what the Reds said in the press conference when Drew Stubbs was drafted:

He probably won't need much time in the minors. Outside one bizzare(injury plagued?) month, Stubbs easily handled low A.

I think Drew either booms or busts next year. The rest will be history.

edabbs44
09-16-2007, 07:26 PM
He probably won't need much time in the minors. Outside one bizzare(injury plagued?) month, Stubbs easily handled low A.

I think Drew either booms or busts next year. The rest will be history.

I'm curious as to how some of the more statistically savvy would evaluate the fact that his BABIPs were so high in those months where he was easily handling Low A.

Three months they were over .380, with July coming in at a ridiculous .439.

Are BABIPs usually much higher in the minors than the majors?

dougdirt
09-16-2007, 11:48 PM
I'm curious as to how some of the more statistically savvy would evaluate the fact that his BABIPs were so high in those months where he was easily handling Low A.

Three months they were over .380, with July coming in at a ridiculous .439.

Are BABIPs usually much higher in the minors than the majors?

BABIPs are higher in general in the minors due to some bad pitching and some bad fielding.

RedDevil
09-17-2007, 07:11 AM
What level will Stubbs be playing at next year

GoReds33
09-17-2007, 08:31 AM
Doug: I know it's been hashed out many times on the board, but after looking at the list above, would you think Stubbs has been the biggest disappointment on the field so far of the first 22 picks?I know this was directed at Doug, but I'm sharing my opinion. Stubbs was by far the biggest disapointment, before he ripped off a couple big months. Now he isn't by far the biggest disappointment, but he's close.:)

AmarilloRed
09-17-2007, 02:09 PM
What level will Stubbs be playing at next year

I would imagine he would be at Sarasota in the High A level, but if he does well there he could be quickly promoted to Chattanooga.

GoReds33
09-17-2007, 06:53 PM
I would imagine he would be at Sarasota in the High A level, but if he does well there he could be quickly promoted to Chattanooga.
Let's hope so. I like his chances of making AA or AAA next year. He is a good player, he just needs seasoning.:)

HokieRed
09-18-2007, 12:33 AM
I predict breakout for Stubbs next year, with him finishing the year at AAA.

camisadelgolf
09-18-2007, 04:30 AM
I predict breakout for Stubbs next year, with him finishing the year at AAA.

I hope not. If Stubbs isn't a bust, that will take away about half the discussion from this forum. :D

BRM
09-18-2007, 10:53 AM
I hope not. If Stubbs isn't a bust, that will take away about half the discussion from this forum. :D

Nah, someone else will step up and become a "bust" next year. :)

Topcat
09-19-2007, 08:49 PM
Only only "bust" of drew Stubbs will be in the Hall of Fame :D, ok well I hope so :rolleyes:

RedsManRick
11-15-2007, 03:19 PM
An analysis of minor league baserunning over at BP shows that Stubbs was among the worst baserunners in the minors last year


But even as the overall champion, (Pellot) couldn't match Drew Stubbs of Dayton in the stolen base department; with an EqSBR of -7.9, Stubbs found himself last among all minor league runners in that category. How did he do it? Stubbs was caught stealing 15 times in 38 attempts, and was also picked off four times. Ouch.

For the unintiated, the metric is in runs, meaning Stubbs cost the Dragons nearly 8 runs relative to average through his efforts stealing bases. He was average on his advancing on hits. Just one more thing for us doubters to complain about.

camisadelgolf
11-15-2007, 04:31 PM
I'm not claiming Drew Stubbs is a good baserunner, but I really doubt he is the worst amongst all minor league baserunners. I think his foot injury is a factor. Also, and this may be a stretch, maybe the Reds were trying to do some experimenting with his baserunning. When you change a pitcher's mechanics in the minor leagues, you will often see a decline in his numbers as he adjusts--maybe Stubbs had a similar thing going on.

RedsManRick
11-15-2007, 04:41 PM
I'm not claiming Drew Stubbs is a good baserunner, but I really doubt he is the worst amongst all minor league baserunners. I think his foot injury is a factor. Also, and this may be a stretch, maybe the Reds were trying to do some experimenting with his baserunning. When you change a pitcher's mechanics in the minor leagues, you will often see a decline in his numbers as he adjusts--maybe Stubbs had a similar thing going on.

Don't confuse ability with performance -- it's a common mistake when looking back. I'm quite sure that Stubbs is nowhere near the worst baserunner in the minors from an ability standpoint. That said, his baserunning was among the most costly in the minors in 2007. My apologies if my phrasing blurred the distinction.

camisadelgolf
11-15-2007, 04:47 PM
Don't confuse ability with performance -- it's a common mistake when looking back. I'm quite sure that Stubbs is nowhere near the worst baserunner in the minors from an ability standpoint. That said, his baserunning was among the most costly in the minors in 2007. My apologies if my phrasing blurred the distinction.

I should have known. I often take things too literally. :beerme:

I'm uninitiated. Did the fact that Drew Stubbs had more plate appearances than most minor leaguers have an affect on the calculation?

RedsManRick
11-15-2007, 05:01 PM
The baserunning methodology is pretty interesting. It's not based on plate appearances but rather a specfic set of base running advancement opportunities. This is all from the BP site.

Basically, you get a +- runs score in 4 categories.

EqGAR: Equivalent Ground Advancement Runs. The number of theoretical runs contributed by a baserunner or baserunners above what would be expected given the number and quality of baserunning opportunities. EqGAR is based on a multi-year Run Expectancy matrix and considers the following scenarios:
# Runner on first only with less than two outs, ground ball or bunt is hit to an infielder where a hit or an error is not credited
# Runner on second only with less than two outs, ground ball or bunt is hit to an infielder where a hit or an error is not credited
# Runner on third only with less than two outs, ground ball or bunt is hit to an infielder where a hit or an error is not credited

EqSBR: Equivalent Stolen Base Runs. The number of theoretical runs contributed by a baserunner or baserunners above what would be expected given the number and quality of their baserunning opportunities. EqSBR is based on a multi-year Run Expectancy matrix and considers both stolen base attempts and pick-offs.

EqAAR: Equivalent Air Advancement Runs. The number of theoretical runs contributed by a baserunner or baserunners above what would be expected given the number and quality of their baserunning opportunities. EqAAR is based on a multi-year Run Expectancy matrix, is park adjusted, and considers the following scenarios:
# Runner on first with second and third unoccupied, less than two outs, a line drive, pop-up, or fly ball is caught by an outfielder
# Runner on second but not third, less than two outs, a line drive, pop-up, or fly ball is caught by an outfielder
# Runner on third with other bases optionally occupied, less than two outs, a line drive, pop-up, or fly ball is caught by an outfielder

EqHAR: Equivalent Hit Advancement Runs. The number of theoretical runs contributed by a baserunner or baserunners above what would have been expected given the number and quality of opportunities. EqHAR considers advancement from first on singles, second on singles, and first on doubles and is adjusted for park and based on a multi-year Run Expectancy Matrix.

EqOAR: Equivalent Other Advancement No definition in the BP Glossary, but based on the number of opps, I'm guessing this is all the other standard chances to move up a base.

Here's how Stubbs did:


Type Runs Opp
EqGAR 0.6 25
EqSBR -7.9 44
EqAAR 0.0 37
EqHAR 0.4 48
EqOAR -0.2 302
------
EqRuns -7.1 456

Basically, as the article says, Stubbs ran in to a lot of outs on stolen base attempts and pickoffs. Otherwise, he was slightly above average. Those caught stealings can kill you though. That said, I don't care how many times a guy in the minor league gets caught stealing. I'm glad that he's running so much as it can only help him improve. Hopefully we'll see that success rate improve over the next few years. What's interesting about this to me is that, like we saw in 2007 with Freel, a player can very quickly swing his value by 5+ runs simply by stealing bases more efficiently.

camisadelgolf
11-15-2007, 05:19 PM
That is very interesting. Thank you for posting that.

dougdirt
11-15-2007, 06:24 PM
Given his foot injury, and at times during the season I could see him limping I take his running with a grain of salt for last season.

Highlifeman21
11-16-2007, 11:30 AM
An analysis of minor league baserunning over at BP shows that Stubbs was among the worst baserunners in the minors last year



For the unintiated, the metric is in runs, meaning Stubbs cost the Dragons nearly 8 runs relative to average through his efforts stealing bases. He was average on his advancing on hits. Just one more thing for us doubters to complain about.

That's Ryan Freel-esque.

fearofpopvol1
02-29-2008, 02:07 AM
I think by most accounts, we should have a much better idea on this subject by how Stubs progresses (or regresses) this season.

Lockdwn11
02-29-2008, 01:32 PM
To me this is the year we will all know if he should be a player in the Reds plans or not. He is said to be healthy this year so we will soon find out who the real Drew Stubbs is.

TRF
02-29-2008, 04:33 PM
Based on his draft slot and his first two seasons, he's already a bust. If, like doug, you want to base it on the very small sample of the last half of last season, then he's a future star.

But if he OPS's less than .800 this year, then he's a complete bust. Personally, I'd have moved him as soon as BA named him a Reds' top 10 prospect. His value has never been higher, and it's a huge gamble betting on him improving, when everything about the guy says if he develops at all, it will be late, probably after age 27. When he was drafted it was said he was a raw talent, this AFTER attending UT. The Big 12 is a pretty good baseball conference. He shouldn't be raw at this point, yet he is.

dougdirt
02-29-2008, 04:42 PM
Based on his draft slot and his first two seasons, he's already a bust. If, like doug, you want to base it on the very small sample of the last half of last season, then he's a future star.

But if he OPS's less than .800 this year, then he's a complete bust. Personally, I'd have moved him as soon as BA named him a Reds' top 10 prospect. His value has never been higher, and it's a huge gamble betting on him improving, when everything about the guy says if he develops at all, it will be late, probably after age 27. When he was drafted it was said he was a raw talent, this AFTER attending UT. The Big 12 is a pretty good baseball conference. He shouldn't be raw at this point, yet he is.

Maybe its just me, but I consider someone a bust once its obvious they are not a major leaguer and never will be. That in no way, shape or form describes Drew Stubbs.

As far as it being a huge gable that he improves.... why?
He has a healthy foot for the first time in 2 years and actually showed signs of life that his bat is making a turn.

Also curious where this quote is coming from


when everything about the guy says if he develops at all, it will be late, probably after age 27.

RedsManRick
02-29-2008, 05:13 PM
Until he's a 27 year old non-prospect, the bust label just doesn't work. Fact is that most draft picks don't live up to their potential. As far as I'm concerned, bust only works if he never makes it to the majors to stay. I think there's copious gray area between fully realizing his potential (Mike Cameron 2.0) and never getting a cup of coffee.

I don't think you can call him a bust just because he's behind schedule. The bust label only applies once it becomes clear that he'll never reach a level of performance/contribution which would justify his selection. We're years from that.

dougdirt
02-29-2008, 05:16 PM
I don't think you can call him a bust just because he's behind schedule. The bust label only applies once it becomes clear that he'll never reach a level of performance/contribution which would justify his selection. We're years from that.

And even at that point, whose schedule is Stubbs behind on? The Reds or the fans? The fans schedule really doesn't matter. If Stubbs is behind the Reds schedule, then its one thing, but I really doubt he is. If he finishes 2008 still in Sarasota, I believe he will then be behind schedule according to the Reds, but not yet.

klw
02-29-2008, 05:16 PM
I'm wondering if we will see a little of Stubbs in the MLB ST games like Bruce did last year.

dougdirt
02-29-2008, 05:17 PM
I'm wondering if we will see a little of Stubbs in the MLB ST games like Bruce did last year.

It won't be for a little bit even if it happens because Stubbs doesn't have to report until March 5th for minor league spring training.

RedsManRick
02-29-2008, 05:31 PM
And even at that point, whose schedule is Stubbs behind on? The Reds or the fans? The fans schedule really doesn't matter. If Stubbs is behind the Reds schedule, then its one thing, but I really doubt he is. If he finishes 2008 still in Sarasota, I believe he will then be behind schedule according to the Reds, but not yet.

I'm considering a standard development schedule. Rule of thumb being that if a guy isn't in the upper minors (and justifiably so) by his mid 20's, his chances of every making it are pretty darn small.

Considering that Stubbs comes from a 4 year of top level college ball, you have to wonder why he's not finding success quickly. (yes, I know injuries are part of the explanation). At this point, I can't help but see him as extremely similar to Chris Dickerson with a bit more power. I agree Doug, that hardly makes him a bust. It is what it is -- a 1st round pick who seems to be following the same path as a 16th round pick.

I don't think it's unfair for anybody to say he's been a disappointment so far, but I do think it's definitely premature to apply the bust label.

dougdirt
02-29-2008, 05:35 PM
I'm considering a standard development schedule. Rule of thumb being that if a guy isn't in the upper minors (and justifiably so) by his mid 20's, his chances of every making it are pretty darn small.

Considering that Stubbs comes from a 4 year of top level college ball, you have to wonder why he's not finding success quickly. (yes, I know injuries are part of the explanation). At this point, I can't help but see him as extremely similar to Chris Dickerson with a bit more power. I agree Doug, that hardly makes him a bust. It is what it is -- a 1st round pick who seems to be following the same path as a 16th round pick.

I wasn't really questioning your development schedule, but the premise in general that he was 'behind schedule'. As for why he isn't finding success quickly, injuries are a part of it. There is also the part where he was raw and still had some learning and tweaking to do in his approach to hitting.

2008 is a big year in terms of Drew Stubbs future, but I just feel the kid is going to pass the test big time.

RedsManRick
02-29-2008, 05:42 PM
I wasn't really questioning your development schedule, but the premise in general that he was 'behind schedule'.

I would argue that, right or wrong, the assumed development schedule for first round, All-American, position players from top-tier, big conference schools is shorter than for most other players.

I agree Drew needs to light up the FSL, ideally finishing the year in Chattanooga. If he doesn't, the perception will be that he's falling even further behind a schedule that puts him in the majors by age 25 or 26 -- and I'd have to agree.

TRF
02-29-2008, 05:48 PM
Maybe its just me, but I consider someone a bust once its obvious they are not a major leaguer and never will be. That in no way, shape or form describes Drew Stubbs.

As far as it being a huge gable that he improves.... why?
He has a healthy foot for the first time in 2 years and actually showed signs of life that his bat is making a turn.

Also curious where this quote is coming from

He's a bust in that a top ten college stick should progress faster than he has. I never stated he won't make it, but that it could be late. He's 23 and hasn't dominated a single level. Unless he starts doing that and damn soon, he'll be a 26 year old rookie. Right now he's on schedule to be at LEAST 25 before he's being considered for a MLB job, much less a starter.

And another thing. The "raw" label that he was given just doesn't pass the sniff test. 3 years at UT, plus 2 years now as a professional. Is he still raw? Why is he raw, but other college players are not? Is "raw" code for can hit with metal bat only?

Again, I am not saying he'll never reach the majors, but based on draft slot and development so far, bust city. He can overcome that, but he heading to a pitcher's league, so we'll see.

dougdirt
02-29-2008, 06:49 PM
He's a bust in that a top ten college stick should progress faster than he has. I never stated he won't make it, but that it could be late. He's 23 and hasn't dominated a single level. Unless he starts doing that and damn soon, he'll be a 26 year old rookie. Right now he's on schedule to be at LEAST 25 before he's being considered for a MLB job, much less a starter.
I don't think college has anything to do with it. If he were a high school pick he would get more leeway, but because he is a college pick he doesn't. Makes no sense to me because he wasn't drafted as a 'ready product', he was drafted as a raw athlete with great tools at the plate that needed to be honed in and great defensive tools that were already translated to baseball skills. If he were drafted as a 'ready made' guy, then it would be one thing, but he wasn't and everyone knew it. Therefore, at least in my mind, he doesn't really apply to the 'ready made' mode that a guy like Evan Longoria followed.



And another thing. The "raw" label that he was given just doesn't pass the sniff test. 3 years at UT, plus 2 years now as a professional. Is he still raw? Why is he raw, but other college players are not? Is "raw" code for can hit with metal bat only?
Sure it passes the sniff test. He has the tools (bat speed, strikezone recognition) to be a good hitter, but he is raw in the aspect of making good contact consistently with the ball. He is not as raw as he was. Other college players are raw as well, not all of them, but some of them. Sometimes 'raw' does mean can only hit with a metal bat, but I don't think that applies with Stubbs because generally those are power type hitters with huge holes in their swings. That doesn't really describe Stubbs.



Again, I am not saying he'll never reach the majors, but based on draft slot and development so far, bust city. He can overcome that, but he heading to a pitcher's league, so we'll see.

How is it possible to be a bust but to overcome it? That is pretty contradictory. Either you are or you aren't.

cincyinco
02-29-2008, 10:42 PM
You think some would learn their lesson after calling Homer Bailey a bust after his first year in A ball.

I'm not even saying he's(Homer) going to be a star even now - but it was absolutely rediculous to call him a bust then.. just as its equally rediculous to call Stubbs a bust at this point in time.

Baseball is timeless in every sense of the word. There is not 1 set, clear, determined, "no deviation from the lines" path that every prospect follows. Its not the same. This is a people business. Each person is an individual, with their own timetable, and their own path of growth.

I will certainly conceed that if Stubbs doesn't improve, he's not looking good. He doesn't even look that great now. But there is certainly upside, and certainly things to like about him and certainly area's which he showed progress. Whether he continues that and blossoms, is of course, the ultimate question. But to call him a bust after he played through injuries, and showed glimpses of improvement when "choking up" and moving down in the order is absolute nonsense in my mind.

OnBaseMachine
02-29-2008, 11:13 PM
While I would agree that Stubbs has been a disappointment this far in his career, I think it's unfair to call him a bust at this point. He's only 23 years old and has just 707 professional atbats. He still has time to put it together and live up to his billing. As someone else mentioned, I don't think you can really classify him a bust until he's about 26 or 27 and still struggling.

GoReds33
02-29-2008, 11:45 PM
I have gotta say, character wise he's one of the nicest men I've ever met. I walked right up to him, and we talked for a minute or two while he signed a couple baseballs for me. I really didn't expect him to talk to me, I just expected him to give them back and walk away. I have to say that the Reds have really drafted some character guys... Votto, Bruce, Stubbs, etc.

Z-Fly
03-01-2008, 08:34 AM
I have gotta say, character wise he's one of the nicest men I've ever met. I walked right up to him, and we talked for a minute or two while he signed a couple baseballs for me. I really didn't expect him to talk to me, I just expected him to give them back and walk away. I have to say that the Reds have really drafted some character guys... Votto, Bruce, Stubbs, etc.

I've seen him twice, once in dayton and once at the whiffel ball homerun durby. I know this means nothing at all, but both times the guy couldn't hit for beans.

flyer85
03-01-2008, 10:48 AM
Stubbs needs to have an good year. He has been a disappointment but he still has time, especially with his athleticism.

OnBaseMachine
03-01-2008, 11:09 AM
I'm hoping that he can pull it together because with his athleticism and talent, he could be a fun one to watch. It would be huge for this organization if he could develop into a Mike Cameron type player because that would allow the Reds to shift Bruce to RF and give the Reds two great defensive outfielders.

Will M
03-01-2008, 12:40 PM
Stubbs needs to have an good year. He has been a disappointment but he still has time, especially with his athleticism.

IMO it is a make or break year for Stubbs. He needs to hit WELL at A+ then move up & show he can hit in AA.

TRF
03-01-2008, 04:33 PM
Why after having 3 more years experience than a guy like Bruce is he raw? I don't expect him to be Jay Bruce, I just think the raw label after being coached at the big 12 level for 3 years, is an excuse. why is he raw compared to Dorn, a 32nd round pick?

I think he can overcome his disappointing performance and become a usefull MLB player, but I see his future as a 4th OF.

dougdirt
03-01-2008, 04:41 PM
Why after having 3 more years experience than a guy like Bruce is he raw? I don't expect him to be Jay Bruce, I just think the raw label after being coached at the big 12 level for 3 years, is an excuse. why is he raw compared to Dorn, a 32nd round pick?

I think he can overcome his disappointing performance and become a usefull MLB player, but I see his future as a 4th OF.

Because every player is not the same? Why is it that Griffey was ready to be above average in the majors at 19 but hardly anyone else was? Because players grow at different paces.

TRF
03-01-2008, 06:22 PM
I give up. your view is completely myopic. Stubbs is a 1st rd, top ten pick that had the benefit of 3 years of big 12 coaching at one of the better college baseball schools in the country, and the dude couldn't OPS .800 in A ball. or rookie ball for that matter. Yet Dorn looks to be in AAA at some point this year and he was a 32nd round pick. Dorn is over achieving, but labeling Stubbs a disappointment right now is being kind. He's Chris Dickerson minus the power. MAYBE he becomes more than that, but a college bat drafted in the top ten round SHOULD be in AA at this point at least.

doug, seriously, it's ok to rag on these guys when they don't live up to expectations. It's ok to point out that Bailey has awful BB rates in the minor leagues, and that he needs to overcome that. It really is ok to look at results and not just potential.

edabbs44
03-01-2008, 06:25 PM
While I would agree that Stubbs has been a disappointment this far in his career, I think it's unfair to call him a bust at this point. He's only 23 years old and has just 707 professional atbats. He still has time to put it together and live up to his billing. As someone else mentioned, I don't think you can really classify him a bust until he's about 26 or 27 and still struggling.

26 or 27? The guy is a top 10 pick. Got millions of dollars guaranteed. Waiting until he is 26 or 27 to assess him is ridiculous. 26-27 and you start to get compared to Denorfia, Brady Clark, etc.

Top 10 drafted college players should be in the pros within 2-3 years. If not, it would be fair to start the bust label. Even if Stubbs were to figure it out and start mattering when he is 27, that is still way too long. If he was a 10th rounder, then fine.

Top 10 picks have different timetables than everyone else.

Highlifeman21
03-01-2008, 07:34 PM
Great points TRF and edabbs44.

Come 2009, we'll need another OF. There's a chance we may need 2 if the Reds let Dunn walk.

Let me be clear when I say this.

Drew Stubbs won't be a solution for 2009.

I wish he would, but he won't. I want to root for the kid b/c he's a Red, but he was a waste of a 1st Round Draft Pick, which is organizationally criminal, in my book.

We all know that Stubbs played in the Big 12 and had plenty of success, and being a high 1st Round Draft Pick he absolutely without a shadow of a doubt should be held to a higher standard of development than other prospects.

IMO, at this point of Stubbs career, if he's not ready to be a 4th OF for the Reds in 2009, then he's a complete bust. Maybe it is the curse of the metal bat, but dropping 200 points of OPS from college to the minors is a ridiculously huge flag that can't be dismissed with "his toe was hurt..." I hope in 2008 he continues how he ended 2007, but I don't want to make any big wagers that he will.

dougdirt
03-01-2008, 07:40 PM
I give up. your view is completely myopic. Stubbs is a 1st rd, top ten pick that had the benefit of 3 years of big 12 coaching at one of the better college baseball schools in the country, and the dude couldn't OPS .800 in A ball. or rookie ball for that matter. Yet Dorn looks to be in AAA at some point this year and he was a 32nd round pick. Dorn is over achieving, but labeling Stubbs a disappointment right now is being kind. He's Chris Dickerson minus the power. MAYBE he becomes more than that, but a college bat drafted in the top ten round SHOULD be in AA at this point at least.
You make it sound like Texas pounds out hitters left and right. The only hitter worth a crap to ever come out of that school is Adam Dunn, and he didn't even play baseball there. Has Stubbs not lived up to his Top 10 potential to this point? No, he hasn't. On the flip side, its been 1 season of full season baseball and the guy played while injured bad enough that he needed surgery to have it repaired. Top it off with the big improvements he made as the season went along (.917 OPS in the second half). You keep talking about these time lines that Stubbs should be following, but those are based off of what you believe, not exactly what the Reds have him tapped for. Regardless, its still very foolish to right someone off as a bust when over their last 250 plate appearances they had a .900 OPS.



doug, seriously, it's ok to rag on these guys when they don't live up to expectations. It's ok to point out that Bailey has awful BB rates in the minor leagues, and that he needs to overcome that. It really is ok to look at results and not just potential.

Firstly, its not really ok to 'rag' on them and second not living up to expectations is one thing, not giving someone any amount of time to do so is a completely different thing.

Without getting into Bailey too much, its all about perspective. Yeah, Bailey had horrible walk rates in Dayton. He also improved them greatly the next season, but people continuously brought up his career rates as if what he did in Dayton should be on line with what he did in Sarasota or Chattanooga, when it obviously shouldn't be.

I apply the same thing to Stubbs. He struggled while injured in Billings. He struggled while injured for the first half in Dayton. Then in the second half, while still injured he hit the living crap out of the baseball. To me, what have you done for me lately is a whole lot more important than what you did for me long before that. Prospects are a completely different animal. They are still learning to play the game and making big adjustments to their games. The same rules that apply to major leaguers don't apply to minor leaguers. If Drew Stubbs were a 27 year old in the majors and kept having .750-.780 OPS seasons (which btw for a CF of his caliber would make him one of the best at his position) but put up a .900 OPS in the second half of the season, then I wouldn't think 'oh, he is on the verge of breaking out' but when we are talking about a guy that was 22 years old, when someone does it, it warrants noting and keeping a big close eye on.

dougdirt
03-01-2008, 07:42 PM
IMO, at this point of Stubbs career, if he's not ready to be a 4th OF for the Reds in 2009, then he's a complete bust. Maybe it is the curse of the metal bat, but dropping 200 points of OPS from college to the minors is a ridiculously huge flag that can't be dismissed with "his toe was hurt..." I hope in 2008 he continues how he ended 2007, but I don't want to make any big wagers that he will.

So if he isn't ready for the majors by March 2009, no matter what he does from that point forward, he is a bust? That seems like poor logic.

edabbs44
03-01-2008, 10:00 PM
So if he isn't ready for the majors by March 2009, no matter what he does from that point forward, he is a bust? That seems like poor logic.

He would need to be a very productive player from that point forward to not be a bust.

Plus, that means he would have to blow through 3 levels in 1-2 years. Absolutely can happen, but a little difficult to imagine when he only has 2-3 solid months under his belt in Low A playing against competition without his pedigree.

Top 10 guys have much higher standards to live up to.

Highlifeman21
03-01-2008, 11:44 PM
So if he isn't ready for the majors by March 2009, no matter what he does from that point forward, he is a bust? That seems like poor logic.

Just b/c you don't agree with the logic doesn't make it poor logic.

Stubbs was drafted to be in the Reds' OF plans for 2009. He won't be. He probably won't even be in 2010. Given his current rate of development, we're looking at 2011 as a best case scenario. By that time, we'll be at the end of the "window to win", which is largely contingent on the contracts of Harang, Arroyo, Cordero, and Phillips (and no, not Andy). Cordero and Phillips are the only two currently locked up through 2012. I don't think anyone would argue that those 4 players won't continue to play a key role in if the Reds win or not.

If Stubbs is ready for 2011, then he's clearly late to the party. We need him to be ready for 2009, and there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. Unfortunately he does have more expecation and pressure as being a high 1st Round Pick, but it comes with the territory.

No one liked the pick at he time, you included doug, and it's obviously turned out to be a bad pick.

In a business and economcial stance, Drew Stubbs is deadweight loss, and we must treat him accordingly.

SMcGavin
03-02-2008, 12:03 AM
Just b/c you don't agree with the logic doesn't make it poor logic.

No, I'd have to say it's still poor logic. If you want to say "If Stubbs isn't ready by March 2009, he would have to do a lot after that for him not to be a bust" (basically what edabbs said), that's a stance you can defend. Saying the rest of his career is irrelevant if he's not ready by March 2009 is poor logic. The Reds have a big need for a right handed, good fielding CF. If Stubbs gives them that with league average offensive production from 2010-2013 (or even 2011-2013), he is most definitely not a bust. He'd likely save the organization tens of millions of dollars that they would have spent getting that CF from out of the organization.

You can think Stubbs is a long shot at this point and I don't disagree with you there, but putting out an ultimatum like "everything is irrelevant if he's not ready by March 2009" doesn't make a lot of sense.

edabbs44
03-02-2008, 12:20 AM
The Reds have a big need for a right handed, good fielding CF. If Stubbs gives them that with league average offensive production from 2010-2013 (or even 2011-2013), he is most definitely not a bust. He'd likely save the organization tens of millions of dollars that they would have spent getting that CF from out of the organization.

He would definitely be a bust in this scenario, if he is merely league average.

1) Way, way late to the show. If you think he saved them millions by producing in those years, fine. But he also cost them millions and some wins by toiling in the minors for so long.

2) Top 10 picks should not spend that much time in the minors. He would have to be a top tier CFer in those years for him to reverse the damage of his late arrival.

dougdirt
03-02-2008, 01:47 AM
All I am saying is that right now, the Reds have a guy that Baseball America just listed as a Top 100 (albeit exactly at 100) prospect and some on here are referring to the guy as a bust. Something isn't right there.

RedsManRick
03-02-2008, 02:37 AM
All I am saying is that right now, the Reds have a guy that Baseball America just listed as a Top 100 (albeit exactly at 100) prospect and some on here are referring to the guy as a bust. Something isn't right there.

Doug, let's not make this so black and white. Like you, I think bust is a backwards looking label that can only be applied at the end of his career. However, denying that Drew Stubbs has been a disappoint relative to what most people have expected from him is just ignorant.

I simply don't believe that you take a 21 year old Big 12 position player in the first round and then expect him to take 5+ years to reach the majors.

No, he's not a bust. By definition, in my mind, it's not possible for him to be a bust yet. But there's no harm in admitting that he's not performed as well as the Reds had hoped/expected he would when he was drafted. Heck, let's go back to the development path you expected from him -- did you have him in high A in 2008, without having any significant success in 2006 or 2007?

Just look at the guys drafted around him. Sure, they all have different trajectories -- but most have had more success and are more highly rated. This isn't determinism. Stubbs isn't yet a bust and could very well become a great major leaguer. But look at his corhort and just try to make the case that he's not among the least promising given his age, level of success, and rankings of two organizations which take very different approaches. Of the guys drafted around him (6th to 17th), the 3 guys who are ranked lower than him, are 18, 19, and 19 respectively. Everybody else is ranked more highly, or is ineligible for ranking due to their success. The 4 guys who are as old or older than him have all had more success and are more highly ranked.



Pick Name Pos Age Highest Level BP100 BA100
6 Andrew Miller SP 22 MLB XX XX
7 Clayton Kershaw SP 19 AA 5 7
8 Drew Stubbs OF 22 A -- 100
9 Billy Rowell 3B 18 A -- --
10 Tim Lincecum SP 23 MLB XX XX
11 Max Scherzer SP 22 AAA 90 66
12 Kasey Kiker P 19 A -- --
13 Tyler Colvin OF 21 AA -- 75
14 Travis Snider OF 19 A 7 11
15 Chris Marrero 1B/OF 18 A+ 28 27
16 Jeremy Jeffress SP 19 A -- --
17 Matt Antonelli 3B 22 AA 39 50

Let's not let this discussion get lost in the semantics. It is fully undeniable that Stubbs, as of today, has not lived up to his draft slot like his peers have. He might pan out, he might not. The potential is still there and I don't think many people on this board, even the biggest doubters deny the possibility Stubbs lives up to his potential. Until he clearly fails, he's not a bust in my book. But it's not looking good so far and I simply cannot see how you continue to deny that.

dougdirt
03-02-2008, 03:03 AM
However, denying that Drew Stubbs has been a disappoint relative to what most people have expected from him is just ignorant.
I have not said anything like that.



I simply don't believe that you take a 21 year old Big 12 position player in the first round and then expect him to take 5+ years to reach the majors.
Neither do I. I give him 3 years. Mid to late 2009 MLB debut. I put him on pace for Sarasota/Chattanooga this year and starting 2009 in Louisville.



Heck, let's go back to the development path you expected from him -- did you have him in high A in 2008, without having any significant success in 2006 or 2007?
I didn't expect him to play hurt for two straight years either... but I figured him for Dayton/Sarasota in 2007 and Chattanooga/Louisville in 2008. He is half a season off of what I figured he would be. That said, 250 plate appearances for a prospect is a nice chunk of time for 'success'.



Let's not let this discussion get lost in the semantics. It is fully undeniable that Stubbs, as of today, has not lived up to his draft slot like his peers have. He might pan out, he might not. The potential is still there and I don't think many people on this board, even the biggest doubters deny the possibility Stubbs lives up to his potential. Until he clearly fails, he's not a bust in my book. But it's not looking good so far and I simply cannot see how you continue to deny that.

I am not worried about his peers at this point. They have nothing to do with Drew Stubbs being a bust or not (and I know where you stand on that topic).

In this thread, I have said that Stubbs has been somewhat disappointing in general terms. I have also said that has little to do with his being a bust or not to this point.

SteelSD
03-02-2008, 05:28 AM
Doug, let's not make this so black and white. Like you, I think bust is a backwards looking label that can only be applied at the end of his career. However, denying that Drew Stubbs has been a disappoint relative to what most people have expected from him is just ignorant.

I simply don't believe that you take a 21 year old Big 12 position player in the first round and then expect him to take 5+ years to reach the majors.

No, he's not a bust. By definition, in my mind, it's not possible for him to be a bust yet. But there's no harm in admitting that he's not performed as well as the Reds had hoped/expected he would when he was drafted. Heck, let's go back to the development path you expected from him -- did you have him in high A in 2008, without having any significant success in 2006 or 2007?

Just look at the guys drafted around him. Sure, they all have different trajectories -- but most have had more success and are more highly rated. This isn't determinism. Stubbs isn't yet a bust and could very well become a great major leaguer. But look at his corhort and just try to make the case that he's not among the least promising given his age, level of success, and rankings of two organizations which take very different approaches. Of the guys drafted around him (6th to 17th), the 3 guys who are ranked lower than him, are 18, 19, and 19 respectively. Everybody else is ranked more highly, or is ineligible for ranking due to their success. The 4 guys who are as old or older than him have all had more success and are more highly ranked.



Pick Name Pos Age Highest Level BP100 BA100
6 Andrew Miller SP 22 MLB XX XX
7 Clayton Kershaw SP 19 AA 5 7
8 Drew Stubbs OF 22 A -- 100
9 Billy Rowell 3B 18 A -- --
10 Tim Lincecum SP 23 MLB XX XX
11 Max Scherzer SP 22 AAA 90 66
12 Kasey Kiker P 19 A -- --
13 Tyler Colvin OF 21 AA -- 75
14 Travis Snider OF 19 A 7 11
15 Chris Marrero 1B/OF 18 A+ 28 27
16 Jeremy Jeffress SP 19 A -- --
17 Matt Antonelli 3B 22 AA 39 50

Let's not let this discussion get lost in the semantics. It is fully undeniable that Stubbs, as of today, has not lived up to his draft slot like his peers have. He might pan out, he might not. The potential is still there and I don't think many people on this board, even the biggest doubters deny the possibility Stubbs lives up to his potential. Until he clearly fails, he's not a bust in my book. But it's not looking good so far and I simply cannot see how you continue to deny that.

Absolutely fantastic post.

Cedric
03-02-2008, 08:02 AM
Doug, let's not make this so black and white. Like you, I think bust is a backwards looking label that can only be applied at the end of his career. However, denying that Drew Stubbs has been a disappoint relative to what most people have expected from him is just ignorant.

I simply don't believe that you take a 21 year old Big 12 position player in the first round and then expect him to take 5+ years to reach the majors.

No, he's not a bust. By definition, in my mind, it's not possible for him to be a bust yet. But there's no harm in admitting that he's not performed as well as the Reds had hoped/expected he would when he was drafted. Heck, let's go back to the development path you expected from him -- did you have him in high A in 2008, without having any significant success in 2006 or 2007?

Just look at the guys drafted around him. Sure, they all have different trajectories -- but most have had more success and are more highly rated. This isn't determinism. Stubbs isn't yet a bust and could very well become a great major leaguer. But look at his corhort and just try to make the case that he's not among the least promising given his age, level of success, and rankings of two organizations which take very different approaches. Of the guys drafted around him (6th to 17th), the 3 guys who are ranked lower than him, are 18, 19, and 19 respectively. Everybody else is ranked more highly, or is ineligible for ranking due to their success. The 4 guys who are as old or older than him have all had more success and are more highly ranked.



Pick Name Pos Age Highest Level BP100 BA100
6 Andrew Miller SP 22 MLB XX XX
7 Clayton Kershaw SP 19 AA 5 7
8 Drew Stubbs OF 22 A -- 100
9 Billy Rowell 3B 18 A -- --
10 Tim Lincecum SP 23 MLB XX XX
11 Max Scherzer SP 22 AAA 90 66
12 Kasey Kiker P 19 A -- --
13 Tyler Colvin OF 21 AA -- 75
14 Travis Snider OF 19 A 7 11
15 Chris Marrero 1B/OF 18 A+ 28 27
16 Jeremy Jeffress SP 19 A -- --
17 Matt Antonelli 3B 22 AA 39 50

Let's not let this discussion get lost in the semantics. It is fully undeniable that Stubbs, as of today, has not lived up to his draft slot like his peers have. He might pan out, he might not. The potential is still there and I don't think many people on this board, even the biggest doubters deny the possibility Stubbs lives up to his potential. Until he clearly fails, he's not a bust in my book. But it's not looking good so far and I simply cannot see how you continue to deny that.

Valuable post, but maybe not hitting an important part of his being drafted. Context of his draft pick needs to be brought into discussion also though. I know it's odd to say that a college bat drafted in the top ten shouldn't have been expected to fast track, but that was really the case when they drafted him. Is that smart business by the Reds? I'm not so sure. But that is the context. The Reds and every other team around them knew that Stubbs was still raw with the bat and many figured it would take time for him to adjust from a wood bat. If you watched him in college he had a major aluminum bat swing. I don't need to go into detail as to what that means because I'll assume with your baseball knowledge you know what that is.

I honestly think the Reds knew when they were drafting Drew that he would take longer than most college bats but they were willing because he is plus plus on speed/defense and he shows patience at the plate. I think the Reds were willing to gamble that Drew might struggle for a little while, but he would hopefully progress enough to hit at league average while showing good patience. I'm not arguing that the pick wasn't incredibly risky and possibly not smart for a top ten pick. I'm just stating that his timetable compared to others on your list isn't really an issue. The Reds saw a weak draft and had a major need for defense up the middle and a center fielder that could cover major ground. I think we all are just hoping like hell that Drew's last 250 at bats were a turning point and we are finally going to see an elite package like we hoped. The pick was a definite boom or bust and with an amazing talent like Jay Bruce it could turn into a brilliant pick.

Right now? His performance is disappointing and there is no sugar coating that. The good thing though is Drew ended last year with momentum and possibly he will have his breakout year. With his elite speed and defense we would be looking at gold. BIG if at this point though.

Betterread
03-02-2008, 12:02 PM
Doug, let's not make this so black and white. Like you, I think bust is a backwards looking label that can only be applied at the end of his career. However, denying that Drew Stubbs has been a disappoint relative to what most people have expected from him is just ignorant.

I simply don't believe that you take a 21 year old Big 12 position player in the first round and then expect him to take 5+ years to reach the majors.

No, he's not a bust. By definition, in my mind, it's not possible for him to be a bust yet. But there's no harm in admitting that he's not performed as well as the Reds had hoped/expected he would when he was drafted. Heck, let's go back to the development path you expected from him -- did you have him in high A in 2008, without having any significant success in 2006 or 2007?

Let's not let this discussion get lost in the semantics. It is fully undeniable that Stubbs, as of today, has not lived up to his draft slot like his peers have. He might pan out, he might not. The potential is still there and I don't think many people on this board, even the biggest doubters deny the possibility Stubbs lives up to his potential. Until he clearly fails, he's not a bust in my book. But it's not looking good so far and I simply cannot see how you continue to deny that.

You make compelling points about his current status compared to his draft position. However, the draft was 2 years ago. Currently, he is part of the Reds developmental system, and his true measure of success is what his employer thinks of his development. If he can sustain his late-2007 hitting improvements in 2008, I think the Reds will be satisfied with a level-a-year progress. That would display development in an area the system identified as a weak area of his game. I sincerely hope the Reds drafted him with the belief that they could get his hitting to improve. I have the sense that some posters think the Reds drafted him and paid him $2 million without this belief, rather a "hope" that he could improve on his own.

RedsManRick
03-02-2008, 12:43 PM
You make compelling points about his current status compared to his draft position. However, the draft was 2 years ago. Currently, he is part of the Reds developmental system, and his true measure of success is what his employer thinks of his development. If he can sustain his late-2007 hitting improvements in 2008, I think the Reds will be satisfied with a level-a-year progress. That would display development in an area the system identified as a weak area of his game. I sincerely hope the Reds drafted him with the belief that they could get his hitting to improve. I have the sense that some posters think the Reds drafted him and paid him $2 million without this belief, rather a "hope" that he could improve on his own.

We have to not confuse the questions. There are two debates being combined in to one here. The first is, will Stubbs eventually live up to his potential? The second is, where does Stubbs stand today in regards to question one?

I agree, that if Stubbs succeeds, it will be because he turned over a new leaf in the late summer of 2007. That might have happened. 2008 should start to tell us. The point I'm trying to make is that, as of today, he's behind the curve. He's not as good a prospect as his draft peers. The Top 100 rankings in light of player age are great evidence of that.

Doug has attempted to make the case that the Reds understood Stubbs would be on the 5 year+ curve when they drafted him. You are saying the Reds would be fine if did make the majors until age 26. I simply can't believe that. You don't take a first rounder who you don't think will make his major league debut until he's 26. Sure there are a lot of players who follow that path. There's nothing wrong with that. But when they're drafted in the top 10, that's not the intent. That just doesn't make sense.

Let's not confuse the questions. He might pan out, he might not. There are paths and arguments for both eventualities and we can continue to make them. But when it comes to where he stands today as a prospect, he's slipped.

Bip Roberts
03-02-2008, 01:04 PM
Trade him for Juan Pierre!

edabbs44
03-02-2008, 01:04 PM
All I am saying is that right now, the Reds have a guy that Baseball America just listed as a Top 100 (albeit exactly at 100) prospect and some on here are referring to the guy as a bust. Something isn't right there.

Doug,

Couple of questions for you:

1) If you took a player 8th overall and two years later a well respected publication put out a top 100 prospect list, where would you:

a) Hope/wish that player would be ranked (realistic best case scenario)?
b) Expect that player to be ranked (realistic middle of the road scenario)?
c) See the ranking drawn between bust/non-bust discussions (realistic worst case scenario) when there is no catastrophic injury to talk about?

2) What are your thoughts if your 8th overall pick was originally ranked 88th in 2006 and then dropped to 100th the following year, even when he showed some progress in the 2nd half of 2007? Especially when taking into account the fact that the publication does give a solid amount of consideration to players who are projectable and ranking aren't determined on 100% performance.

SMcGavin
03-02-2008, 01:07 PM
He would definitely be a bust in this scenario, if he is merely league average.

1) Way, way late to the show. If you think he saved them millions by producing in those years, fine. But he also cost them millions and some wins by toiling in the minors for so long.

2) Top 10 picks should not spend that much time in the minors. He would have to be a top tier CFer in those years for him to reverse the damage of his late arrival.

I don't understand the logic of saying only 2009 and 2010 is the Reds window of contention. Aren't we trying to win in the years beyond that too? If Stubbs is the CF starter for the Reds from 2010-2013, that might be later than the Reds intended when they drafted him. I don't know, I'm not in the Reds organization. I tend to agree with Cedric in that the Reds knew what they were getting into with Stubbs, he clearly wasn't a polished product. We could debate that for a while but really none of know exactly what the Reds had planned for him.

But I disagree with the notion that anyone who gives you four years of an average bat with a plus glove at a key defensive spot is a "bust", even if he was a top ten pick.

dougdirt
03-02-2008, 01:20 PM
Doug,

Couple of questions for you:

1) If you took a player 8th overall and two years later a well respected publication put out a top 100 prospect list, where would you:

a) Hope/wish that player would be ranked (realistic best case scenario)?
b) Expect that player to be ranked (realistic middle of the road scenario)?
c) See the ranking drawn between bust/non-bust discussions (realistic worst case scenario) when there is no catastrophic injury to talk about?

You would obviously hope he would be ranked. He isn't ranked as high as one would expect, but that itself does not come close to making one bust/not bust.



2) What are your thoughts if your 8th overall pick was originally ranked 88th in 2006 and then dropped to 100th the following year, even when he showed some progress in the 2nd half of 2007? Especially when taking into account the fact that the publication does give a solid amount of consideration to players who are projectable and ranking aren't determined on 100% performance.
I think it has a lot to do with the talent that 2007 brought in more than anything Stubbs did (or didn't do) himself.

Just because one hasn't lived up to potential after 1 full season does not make one a bust. Justin Upton had a very lackluster first full season (not comparing the players, just noting that players don't always burst onto the scene) then put the tools together and had a great second season.

edabbs44
03-02-2008, 02:00 PM
Just because one hasn't lived up to potential after 1 full season does not make one a bust. Justin Upton had a very lackluster first full season (not comparing the players, just noting that players don't always burst onto the scene) then put the tools together and had a great second season.

Upton is a totally different case. You can't compare the progression of a HS guy to a college guy.

edabbs44
03-02-2008, 02:14 PM
I think the two sides of the argument are arguing different things. While I think that Stubbs is on the bust path and has been a bust so far, I also think he has time to turn it around.

Here's the way I see it:

While Stubbs isn't a bust, he is currently busting.

While Stubbs hasn't been a complete disaster, he hasn't lived up to anyone's expectations so far.

While Stubbs did play well at the end of last season, he was also in a league with competition much less than what he should be facing.

While he has been taking a good share of abuse due to the fact that he was selected over Lincecum, at least he has been deflecting some criticism away from Sean Watson who was taken over such top 100 guys like Brett Anderson and Justin Masterson.


Hopefully he turns it on this year. If not, I don't think Cincy will be able to project him to be an integral part of the team's future.

dougdirt
03-02-2008, 02:15 PM
Upton is a totally different case. You can't compare the progression of a HS guy to a college guy.

It isn't a different case at all. It is a case of a guy not using all the tools he had immediately in his first full season.

edabbs44
03-02-2008, 02:17 PM
It isn't a different case at all. It is a case of a guy not using all the tools he had immediately in his first full season.

Come on. You honestly think that both Upton and Stubbs should be judged the same way coming out of a draft? When Stubbs played 4 years in the Big 12 and Upton came out of HS?

Should Mesoraco be viewed on the same timeline as Matt Weiters?

gedred69
03-02-2008, 03:17 PM
Granted, he needs more time to show if he can figure in the future. Seeing him at Dayton, I was not impressed with his bat. After being lowered in the BO, he did better. Yet, I'm still inclined if he gets off to a good start at High A Sarasota, deal him for a catcher, ---or pitching prospect. This year, I'm more tantilized by the prospect of how much better Dorn can get. He is still under the radar for now, thankfully so. He will at least be AA, but I expect more like AAA at the start of this season.

Betterread
03-02-2008, 04:55 PM
We have to not confuse the questions. There are two debates being combined in to one here. The first is, will Stubbs eventually live up to his potential? The second is, where does Stubbs stand today in regards to question one?

Doug has attempted to make the case that the Reds understood Stubbs would be on the 5 year+ curve when they drafted him. You are saying the Reds would be fine if did make the majors until age 26. I simply can't believe that. You don't take a first rounder who you don't think will make his major league debut until he's 26. Sure there are a lot of players who follow that path. There's nothing wrong with that. But when they're drafted in the top 10, that's not the intent. That just doesn't make sense.

Let's not confuse the questions. He might pan out, he might not. There are paths and arguments for both eventualities and we can continue to make them. But when it comes to where he stands today as a prospect, he's slipped.

I agree with you, to a limited extent.
He currently isn't performing like the highly ranked amateur he was described as going into the 2007 draft.
But I don't think Stubbs has slipped. His ranking in the organization and in comparison to other minor leaugers has modestly risen. I wish he was further along in his development, and I am not convinced of his hitting ability, yet. However, he is a legitimate CFer and he a top class athlete. These are strong reasons to be patient with him (see Dickerson for another example).

dougdirt
03-02-2008, 09:58 PM
Come on. You honestly think that both Upton and Stubbs should be judged the same way coming out of a draft? When Stubbs played 4 years in the Big 12 and Upton came out of HS?

Should Mesoraco be viewed on the same timeline as Matt Weiters?

It has nothing to do with timeline. It has to do with a lackluster performance in the first full season of baseball. I don't think Stubbs has a chance of going Justin Upton in 2008 (going A+/AA/MLB), but I do think he could pull a Justin Upton to an extent in that his first full season didn't match what the scouts thought of his tools and ability, but then in his second full season the tools and ability caught up with what people thought about him.

Cedric
03-02-2008, 10:38 PM
We have to not confuse the questions. There are two debates being combined in to one here. The first is, will Stubbs eventually live up to his potential? The second is, where does Stubbs stand today in regards to question one?

I agree, that if Stubbs succeeds, it will be because he turned over a new leaf in the late summer of 2007. That might have happened. 2008 should start to tell us. The point I'm trying to make is that, as of today, he's behind the curve. He's not as good a prospect as his draft peers. The Top 100 rankings in light of player age are great evidence of that.

Doug has attempted to make the case that the Reds understood Stubbs would be on the 5 year+ curve when they drafted him. You are saying the Reds would be fine if did make the majors until age 26. I simply can't believe that. You don't take a first rounder who you don't think will make his major league debut until he's 26. Sure there are a lot of players who follow that path. There's nothing wrong with that. But when they're drafted in the top 10, that's not the intent. That just doesn't make sense.

Let's not confuse the questions. He might pan out, he might not. There are paths and arguments for both eventualities and we can continue to make them. But when it comes to where he stands today as a prospect, he's slipped.

We all knew when he was drafted that there was a high likelihood that he would be behind his peers for a few years. As I stated above. Is that smart business? I dunno. I just know that most fans knew there would be a big learning curve for Drew even though he was a college bat. I'll assume MLB teams knew what we all knew.

edabbs44
03-02-2008, 10:47 PM
It has nothing to do with timeline. It has to do with a lackluster performance in the first full season of baseball. I don't think Stubbs has a chance of going Justin Upton in 2008 (going A+/AA/MLB), but I do think he could pull a Justin Upton to an extent in that his first full season didn't match what the scouts thought of his tools and ability, but then in his second full season the tools and ability caught up with what people thought about him.

I think you are missing a few key points:

1) Stubbs got almost 250 PAs in 2006. Yes last year was his first "full" season, but he had a taste of the pro life before. You can't toss out 2006, just because it wasn't a full season. Upton went into 2006 basically straight from HS.

Check out what Longoria did in his pro debut even though it wasn't a full season.

2) Upton was 18 in his first full minor league season. Stubbs was 22. They were both on the same level of competition. I think Upton gets a little more slack for not ripping it up.


Listen, obviously Stubbs could pull an Upton and have a great year. The question is, do you think it will happen? Do you have the faith in him? I know you have been saying that it is too soon to label him a complete bust. That is probably true. But do you think he will pan out or do you think he will bust?

Cedric
03-02-2008, 10:55 PM
I think you are missing a few key points:

1) Stubbs got almost 250 PAs in 2006. Yes last year was his first "full" season, but he had a taste of the pro life before. You can't toss out 2006, just because it wasn't a full season. Upton went into 2006 basically straight from HS.

Check out what Longoria did in his pro debut even though it wasn't a full season.

2) Upton was 18 in his first full minor league season. Stubbs was 22. They were both on the same level of competition. I think Upton gets a little more slack for not ripping it up.


Listen, obviously Stubbs could pull an Upton and have a great year. The question is, do you think it will happen? Do you have the faith in him? I know you have been saying that it is too soon to label him a complete bust. That is probably true. But do you think he will pan out or do you think he will bust?

Why would Drew need to put up Upton numbers to not be a bust? Everyone knows that his ceiling with the bat isn't near Justin Upton's. I think if Drew Stubbs could put together another 07 at a higher level we will be laughing at this "bust" talk. I can't believe he was written off already anyway, laughable considering he still was getting on base and playing superior defense. That alone has value at his position. A "bust" has no value.

dougdirt
03-02-2008, 10:56 PM
I think you are missing a few key points:

1) Stubbs got almost 250 PAs in 2006. Yes last year was his first "full" season, but he had a taste of the pro life before. You can't toss out 2006, just because it wasn't a full season. Upton went into 2006 basically straight from HS.
There is a long history of people not doing much their first 'half season'. Upton had time in instructional league in the fall of 2005. I think my point holds itself up fine.



Check out what Longoria did in his pro debut even though it wasn't a full season.
Polished hitter versus raw hitter. Not comparable.



2) Upton was 18 in his first full minor league season. Stubbs was 22. They were both on the same level of competition. I think Upton gets a little more slack for not ripping it up.
Except Justin Upton was also being called the next Ken Griffey Jr and was a once in a generational type player then went out and was outperformed by Jay Bruce, Cameron Maybin, Colby Rasmus and Andrew McCutchen in the same league and it really wasn't that close.



Listen, obviously Stubbs could pull an Upton and have a great year. The question is, do you think it will happen? Do you have the faith in him? I know you have been saying that it is too soon to label him a complete bust. That is probably true. But do you think he will pan out or do you think he will bust?
Do I think he will go Upton in terms of having a much better year than the previous one? Absolutely. I don't think he is going to go out and OPS .900, but he won't be playing in the Cal League either....
I think Stubbs will be fine and make him MLB debut mid to late 2009.

Cedric
03-02-2008, 11:30 PM
Just b/c you don't agree with the logic doesn't make it poor logic.

Stubbs was drafted to be in the Reds' OF plans for 2009. He won't be. He probably won't even be in 2010. Given his current rate of development, we're looking at 2011 as a best case scenario. By that time, we'll be at the end of the "window to win", which is largely contingent on the contracts of Harang, Arroyo, Cordero, and Phillips (and no, not Andy). Cordero and Phillips are the only two currently locked up through 2012. I don't think anyone would argue that those 4 players won't continue to play a key role in if the Reds win or not.

If Stubbs is ready for 2011, then he's clearly late to the party. We need him to be ready for 2009, and there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. Unfortunately he does have more expecation and pressure as being a high 1st Round Pick, but it comes with the territory.

No one liked the pick at he time, you included doug, and it's obviously turned out to be a bad pick.

In a business and economcial stance, Drew Stubbs is deadweight loss, and we must treat him accordingly.

Dead weight? That's not just over dramatic, it's wrong. I hope the Reds challenge Drew and if he moves up to Chattanooga fast and if continues to get on base and play superior defense he has great value. They should have moved him harder last year.

RedsManRick
03-03-2008, 12:23 AM
There is a long history of people not doing much their first 'half season'. Upton had time in instructional league in the fall of 2005. I think my point holds itself up fine. Polished hitter versus raw hitter. Not comparable.

Just a question, and I don't know the answer so this could bite me, but how many players drafted in the top 10 after 3 years of major college experience, were labeled 'raw' offensively, and went on to have much success?

I guess it all comes back to what the logic was on the pick itself. What does it say about a guy's talent that after 3 years of top college ball he's still raw? That in the year and a half since being drafted, he's among the lowest rated of his peers? That the ones rated lower were all drafted straight out of high school? Of course those guys were raw. Why was Stubbs raw? And why after 18 months why is he still raw? At what point does he stop getting the benefit of the doubt? At what point do you consider him falling behind expectation?

SteelSD
03-03-2008, 12:26 AM
There is a long history of people not doing much their first 'half season'. Upton had time in instructional league in the fall of 2005. I think my point holds itself up fine.

Only if you refuse to understand the age differences between the two players. You've consistently used age comps when it suits your argument, so why is it ok to just ignore them now?

18-year old versus 22-year old at the same level. Not the same.


Polished hitter versus raw hitter. Not comparable.

Where is this "raw hitter" thing coming from? The criticism of Stubbs prior to the draft is that his skills didn't project to translate well to wood bats; not that he was "raw".

The difference between Longoria and Stubbs is that the former projected to hit and the latter didn't. That's quite different than "polished vs. raw". Instead, it's "projectible vs. 'if he hits'". And I think you know my stance on "if he hits" prospects.


Except Justin Upton was also being called the next Ken Griffey Jr and was a once in a generational type player then went out and was outperformed by Jay Bruce, Cameron Maybin, Colby Rasmus and Andrew McCutchen in the same league and it really wasn't that close.

Midwest League Ages:

Justin Upton: 18 years old
Jay Bruce: 19
Cameron Maybin: 19
Colby Rasmus: 19
Andrew McCutchen: Didn't play in the MWL

Prior to their MWL exposure Bruce and Rasmus already had 192 and 216 professional AB respectively. Both were within two weeks of having a full year on Upton prior to their MWL stints. Maybin is the closest age comp of the four (@5 months older), so that's probably as close to an "apples to apples" comparison as we get from your examples.

Yet, what does any of that have to do with a 22-year old Drew Stubbs (actually, 22.5 years old) at the same level? Nothing. They're all red herrings positioned to make Upton's "debut" look worse in comparision in order to attempt a stretch about how Stubbs' first season and a half actually hasn't been that bad. But bad it's been.

Stubbs is who he is at this moment. His questionable placement as the last of BA's "Top 100" is tied to his draft position and likely the concept of defensive tools and an "if he hits" mentality. Rick did an excellent job of properly identifying that Stubbs' current prospect ranking is nothing resembling good news. Of the nine players taken directly behind Stubbs, 66.7% of them are ranked higher than Stubbs according to BA. If we exclude the players younger than 21 last season, that number changes to 100%. Stubbs is going to be 24 years old in October.

If Drew Stubbs were in another team's system, I'm confident that he's a guy you'd be incredibly down on, doug. And considering his high IsoD game sans high Batting Average, coupled with a big K rate, I'm surprised that you're referring to him as a "hitter" rather than a "batter".


Do I think he will go Upton in terms of having a much better year than the previous one? Absolutely. I don't think he is going to go out and OPS .900, but he won't be playing in the Cal League either.... I think Stubbs will be fine and make him MLB debut mid to late 2009.

If Stubbs projects to even sniff the Show in 2009, then the Reds need to start him out at AA this season and he needs to produce numbers well beyond what we've seen so far. Should he start out in high-A ball and produce the same kind of numbers we've seen, there's really no hope for the kind of multiple-level jumps he'd need to show up at the MLB level anytime soon.

dougdirt
03-03-2008, 12:41 AM
Only if you refuse to understand the age differences between the two players. You've consistently used age comps when it suits your argument, so why is it ok to just ignore them now?

18-year old versus 22-year old at the same level. Not the same.
Only if you refuse to grasp the point I was making.



Where is this "raw hitter" thing coming from? The criticism of Stubbs prior to the draft is that his skills didn't project to translate well to wood bats; not that he was "raw".
No, it was that his SWING, not his skills, that didn't project to translate well to wood bats. That is what we call raw, when someone needs to rework, or do a lot of work on a part of their game.



Midwest League Ages:

Justin Upton: 18 years old
Jay Bruce: 19
Cameron Maybin: 19
Colby Rasmus: 19
Andrew McCutchen: Didn't play in the MWL
Which still has little to do with the fact that one of those guys didn't perform up to his 'tools' and 'projected ability' right away.



Yet, what does any of that have to do with a 22-year old Drew Stubbs (actually, 22.5 years old) at the same level? Nothing. They're all red herrings positioned to make Upton's "debut" look worse in comparision in order to attempt a stretch about how Stubbs' first season and a half actually hasn't been that bad. But bad it's been.
It has to do with not performing up to your tools or projected ability.



Stubbs is who he is at this moment. His questionable placement as the last of BA's "Top 100" is tied to his draft position and likely the concept of defensive tools and an "if he hits" mentality. Rick did an excellent job of properly identifying that Stubbs' current prospect ranking is nothing resembling good news. Of the nine players taken directly behind Stubbs, 66.7% of them are ranked higher than Stubbs according to BA. If we exclude the players younger than 21 last season, that number changes to 100%. Stubbs is going to be 24 years old in October.

None of which has anything to do with Drew Stubbs ability going forward.



If Drew Stubbs were in another team's system, I'm confident that he's a guy you'd be incredibly down on, doug. And considering his high IsoD game sans high Batting Average, coupled with a big K rate, I'm surprised that you're referring to him as a "hitter" rather than a "batter".
Nah, he would be the same guy he is now. Raw at the plate, great in the field, but showing signs of improvement and coming off an injury. Personally, he wouldn't be in my top 100 list. He does fall between 100 and 125 though. In the first half of the season, Stubbs was more of a batter than hitter, but in the second half he was showing the complete package as he hit .303/.394/.512. His first half was incredibly poor, but he showed massive improvements.



If Stubbs projects to even sniff the Show in 2009, then the Reds need to start him out at AA this season and he needs to produce numbers well beyond what we've seen so far. Should he start out in high-A ball and produce the same kind of numbers we've seen, there's really no hope for the kind of multiple-level jumps he'd need to show up at the MLB level anytime soon.
I figure he starts out in High A and OPS's around .800 for the first half and gets a second half promotion to AA where in better hitting environments he raises his OPS a little bit then starts 2009 in AAA. Thats about what I see happening.

SteelSD
03-03-2008, 01:44 AM
Only if you refuse to grasp the point I was making.

Your "point" was D.O.A. Both Rick and edabbs both killed your "point" already. I'm not sure why you don't know it's dead.


No, it was that his SWING, not his skills, that didn't project to translate well to wood bats. That is what we call raw, when someone needs to rework, or do a lot of work on a part of their game.

That's not "raw". That's "flawed". It's an "if he hits" scenario in a nutshell. You need to stay away from "if he hits" that high in the draft, particularly when you have pitching talent aplenty available at your slot. Stubbs was a poor pick. Poor. Like not good.


Which still has little to do with the fact that one of those guys didn't perform up to his 'tools' and 'projected ability' right away.

Red herrings don't bite, particularly when you're trying to evaluate 18 and 19 year-olds versus a guy three years older.


It has to do with not performing up to your tools or projected ability.

"It" has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, and everything to do with you wanting to distract folks from Stubbs' issues with the bat. You're producing comps that aren't comps from an age perspective, yet you'll use age comps whenever said age comps will prop up your prospect de' jour.

Age comps either matter or they don't. You choose which.


None of which has anything to do with Drew Stubbs ability going forward.

Yet your posts have nothing to do with Drew Stubbs going forward and everything to do with attempting to defend Drew Stubbs; who hasn't performed as a top pick should to this point.

If none of those players have anything to do with Drew Stubbs going into his age 23 season, then why would you possibly talk about them?


Nah, he would be the same guy he is now. Raw at the plate, great in the field, but showing signs of improvement and coming off an injury. Personally, he wouldn't be in my top 100 list. He does fall between 100 and 125 though. In the first half of the season, Stubbs was more of a batter than hitter, but in the second half he was showing the complete package as he hit .303/.394/.512. His first half was incredibly poor, but he showed massive improvements.

Again, there's the "raw". Stubbs is not "raw" with the bat. That's a construct of your imagination, as is "hitter" versus "batter".


I figure he starts out in High A and OPS's around .800 for the first half and gets a second half promotion to AA where in better hitting environments he raises his OPS a little bit then starts 2009 in AAA. Thats about what I see happening.

Wow. Around an .800 OPS in high-A ball at age 23 and a chance at a promotion to AA in 2008. I'm sure that's what you wanted for a college player selected with the 8th pick in the 2006 draft.

dougdirt
03-03-2008, 02:02 AM
Go Drew Stubbs!

I am done with this.

Bip Roberts
03-03-2008, 02:04 AM
Go Drew Stubbs!

I am done with this.

:bowrofl:

edabbs44
03-03-2008, 08:49 AM
Why would Drew need to put up Upton numbers to not be a bust? Everyone knows that his ceiling with the bat isn't near Justin Upton's. I think if Drew Stubbs could put together another 07 at a higher level we will be laughing at this "bust" talk. I can't believe he was written off already anyway, laughable considering he still was getting on base and playing superior defense. That alone has value at his position. A "bust" has no value.

I really said nothing resembling what you think you are responding to.

Didn't say he was a bust. Said he has disappointed and is "busting."

Didn't say he needs to put up Upton like numbers. Said it wasn't right to compare the first years of the two, since Upton was a lot younger when he came into the pros.

Good defense and getting on base is fine, but not the only things you look for from a top 10 pick. If Homer ends up as a solid middle reliever, would you consider him a bust? What if Bruce ends up as a plus defender and good OB skills, but that's it? Still happy there, even when those are guys who provide "value"?

camisadelgolf
03-03-2008, 09:50 AM
I don't think the Reds drafted Drew Stubbs for the sole purpose of expecting a great minor league career. Actually, I'd even wager that the Reds don't care if Stubbs puts up a .150/.200/.250 line in the minor leagues so long as he performs at the Major League level.

If Drew Stubbs doesn't have a career worthy of his paycheck (which should come to a little more than $3MM for at least the first seven years of his professional career or so), then he will have been a bust. Just because he was the eighth player drafted doesn't mean he is expected to be the eight-best player from the draft--it just means that the Reds wanted to add him to the organization before any of the other available players who most likely would have been drafted before the Reds' next pick.

However, if he had signed for, say, $30MM, then I would already jump to the conclusion that he has been a bust because I am extremely doubtful that he will have put up numbers to justify that much money being spent on him before he's eligible for arbitration or free agency. It's not too soon to say he will or will not be a bust, but it is too soon to say he is a bust.

edabbs44
03-03-2008, 09:58 AM
I don't think the Reds drafted Drew Stubbs for the sole purpose of expecting a great minor league career. Actually, I'd even wager that the Reds don't care if Stubbs puts up a .150/.200/.250 line in the minor leagues so long as he performs at the Major League level.

That is a really weird statement. If he hit .150/.200/.250 in the minors, it would be really tough for him to stick with the organization long enough to get the chance to perform at the major league level.


If Drew Stubbs doesn't have a career worthy of his paycheck (which should come to a little more than $3MM for at least the first seven years of his professional career or so), then he will have been a bust. Just because he was the eighth player drafted doesn't mean he is expected to be the eight-best player from the draft--it just means that the Reds wanted to add him to the organization before any of the other available players who most likely would have been drafted before the Reds' next pick.

You are right, the Reds selecting him 8th does not mean they thought he would be the 8th best player from the draft. It means they thought he would be the best player in the draft not yet selected at that time.


However, if he had signed for, say, $30MM, then I would already jump to the conclusion that he has been a bust because I am extremely doubtful that he will have put up numbers to justify that much money being spent on him before he's eligible for arbitration or free agency. It's not too soon to say he will or will not be a bust, but it is too soon to say he is a bust.

Agreed, he isn't a bust yet. But he is currently on Lackluster Lane, which connects to the Boulevard of Broken Dreams.

TRF
03-03-2008, 10:57 AM
Stubbs defense alone seperates him from being BJ Szymanski. His speed on the basepaths is negated by a total lack of base stealing prowess. He does almost as much harm as good after reaching 1B.

While he has a decent OBP, it isn't special in any way, especially for low A ball.

Drew Stubbs is at the first crossroads of his career. He will likely do one of the following:

Continue where he left off at the end of 2007. He really had a very good (not great) second half. But his history suggests that even if he OPS's north of .800, I doubt the Reds promote him to AA. He'll have to approach .900, a number that doug, during the 2006 season tossed around alot.
He'll OPS around .775 again He'll be reckless on the basepaths and his SB% will hover around 60%#2 is more likely than #1, though everyone on this board is rooting for #1. yes doug, we all want Stubbs to succeed. Your problem is you want to excuse the extremely poor job the Reds FO did on scouting the guy. You want to ignore results and concentrate on potential. You'll overvalue Stubbs and undervalue Maloney, because your projection of Maloney is #5 starter. never mind that all Maloney has done is succeed in his career, while all Stubbs has done is disappoint.

But pitchers and batters are apples and oranges. want to bet on the Reds 1st rd pick vs the Reds 32nd rd pick making the major leagues first? Or even having the better career?

And timeline has EVERYTHING to do with it. a 1st rd, top 10 COLLEGE bat should be in the major leagues within 2-3 years. Stubbs will take 5-6, and that's longer than some HS picks.
Some are unwilling to say bust at this point, but rather he's dangling on the precipice. Perhaps. My opinion is the FO was a bust when they made the selection, and I think they regret it.

Highlifeman21
03-03-2008, 12:44 PM
Dead weight? That's not just over dramatic, it's wrong. I hope the Reds challenge Drew and if he moves up to Chattanooga fast and if continues to get on base and play superior defense he has great value. They should have moved him harder last year.

Or they should have capitalized on his perceived value and included him in a package to land a better arm than we currently have in-house.

There's still opportunity for that move to happen, but I have a feeling Stubbs' value is at an all-time low since being drafted, and I'd like to think his value has nowhere to go but up, but that's largely dependent on him picking up where he left off in the end of 2007.

I don't remember anyone that liked the Drew Stubbs selection at the time, and it's proved to have been historically bad. Like I previously said, I root for the kid to improve b/c he's a Red, but I'm not going to hold my breath that it happens.

edabbs44
03-03-2008, 12:50 PM
Or they should have capitalized on his perceived value and included him in a package to land a better arm than we currently have in-house.

There's still opportunity for that move to happen, but I have a feeling Stubbs' value is at an all-time low since being drafted, and I'd like to think his value has nowhere to go but up, but that's largely dependent on him picking up where he left off in the end of 2007.

I don't remember anyone that liked the Drew Stubbs selection at the time, and it's proved to have been historically bad. Like I previously said, I root for the kid to improve b/c he's a Red, but I'm not going to hold my breath that it happens.

To be fair, Stubbs has only been eligible to be traded since June 2007. His stock was at an all-time low at that point and has only gotten better since then.

Highlifeman21
03-03-2008, 12:55 PM
To be fair, Stubbs has only been eligible to be traded since June 2007. His stock was at an all-time low at that point and has only gotten better since then.

Has it actually improved, though?

I can't imagine his better 2nd half of 2007 left GMs abroad clamoring for his services.

For Drew Stubbs to right the ship, he needs to absolutely tear up AA this year, and do everything he can to get promoted to AAA. I don't see that happening, unfortunately.

edabbs44
03-03-2008, 01:13 PM
Has it actually improved, though?

I can't imagine his better 2nd half of 2007 left GMs abroad clamoring for his services.

For Drew Stubbs to right the ship, he needs to absolutely tear up AA this year, and do everything he can to get promoted to AAA. I don't see that happening, unfortunately.

It has to have improved. I'm not saying that it is great right now, but look at what he was doing one calendar year from when he was drafted. I, for one, had less hope then than I do now.

At least he showed he could hit Low A pitching in the 2nd half of '07.

cincyinco
03-03-2008, 05:46 PM
Your problem is you want to excuse the extremely poor job the Reds FO did on scouting the guy. You want to ignore results and concentrate on potential. You'll overvalue Stubbs and undervalue Maloney, because your projection of Maloney is #5 starter. never mind that all Maloney has done is succeed in his career, while all Stubbs has done is disappoint.

Wasn't it the same scout, a Mr. Brian Wilson I believe - who recently passed away - that recommended Stubbs? The same Mr. Brian Wilson who also gave us Jay Bruce and Homer Bailey?

I'm pretty sure it was, and Stubbs was his last recommendation from the TX region before passing away. If he saw something in the guy, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Sometimes it takes awhile for skills to translate - even for top 10 drafted college picks taken in the first round of a draft.

Your problem is you want it to be black or white, when its every other shade of gray. Its as much about projection as it is looking at a state sheet and reading the numbers. Stubbs may very well be a bust, but he's not yet. The constant bemoaning and railing of Joe Blow prospect around here is nothing but premature and yet all too typical redszone mob mentality.

TRF
03-03-2008, 06:01 PM
no, there were better options on the board. the Reds were thick with OF's and QUALITY college arms were available. A college bat wasn't needed with that pick.

dougdirt
03-03-2008, 06:13 PM
no, there were better options on the board. the Reds were thick with OF's and QUALITY college arms were available. A college bat wasn't needed with that pick.
A college arm wasn't needed with that pick either. The best player on the board was needed and thats likely what the Reds took according to their board. If thats how it went, then I am fine with that, regardless of the fact that it likely wasn't correct (Lincecum and Chamberlain were still on board).

TRF
03-03-2008, 06:15 PM
A college arm wasn't needed with that pick either. The best player on the board was needed and thats likely what the Reds took according to their board. If thats how it went, then I am fine with that, regardless of the fact that it likely wasn't correct (Lincecum and Chamberlain were still on board).

You just made my point. Their board was flawed, and an entire messageboard full of amateurs knew it. That speaks VOLUMES.

Highlifeman21
03-03-2008, 06:22 PM
A college arm wasn't needed with that pick either. The best player on the board was needed and thats likely what the Reds took according to their board. If thats how it went, then I am fine with that, regardless of the fact that it likely wasn't correct (Lincecum and Chamberlain were still on board).

You're fine with the Reds selecting Drew Stubbs under the unknown assumption that he was the best available on the board at the time?

That's pitch forks and torches material in my book. Kill the monster.



I like the logic of best available on the board, but when the logic results in Drew Stubbs, flawed is a nice label for such an outcome.

dougdirt
03-03-2008, 06:23 PM
You're fine with the Reds selecting Drew Stubbs under the unknown assumption that he was the best available on the board at the time?

That's pitch forks and torches material in my book. Kill the monster.

I like the logic of best available on the board, but when the logic results in Drew Stubbs, flawed is a nice label for such an outcome.

I am all about paying my scouts to give me a draft board on players they have scouted for the past 5 months and making their suggetions. If that result beared out Drew Stubbs (who you know I was against at the time) then so be it.

TRF
03-03-2008, 06:27 PM
Scouts will always bring you a guy they think is the next... doesn't mean you take him. The organization was overflowing with quality OF's and had taken one in the first round the previous year. Near major league ready pitching was there for the taking, and they ignored that for a toolsy OF.

How very Bowdian.

Highlifeman21
03-03-2008, 06:35 PM
I am all about paying my scouts to give me a draft board on players they have scouted for the past 5 months and making their suggetions. If that result beared out Drew Stubbs (who you know I was against at the time) then so be it.

I can't fault scouts for making suggestions, but I fault those that listened to the scouts and determined Drew Stubbs was the best available talent on the board.

I honestly don't know anyone that liked the selection at the time, and doug, I think you're in the minority of people that like the selection now.

We're left with a guy who played 3 years at Texas (IIRC), and is on a HS level time-table. Instead of the normal 2-3 year path for guys that have played 2+ years at the college level, we're left with a 4+ year path. By my math, we're at least 1 year in the hole, and possibly as many as 3.

That kind of retardation of his developmental curve hurts the Reds exponentially, given the fact Stubbs was a Top 10 1st Round Draft Pick.

mth123
03-04-2008, 07:57 AM
I must admit that I'm a skeptic when it comes to Stubbs and don't even have him in my personal top 10, but Stubbs does give many reasons to believe. In a chat on Baseball Prospectus, Kevin Goldstien (the Best Prospect writer around these days IMO) responded favorably to a question about Stubbs.

I'm not sure if this is protected content so I'll just paraphrase.

The questioner asked if Stubbs was A) a career minor leaguer, B) a 4th OF for a few years and then fading away C) a solid starter for a few years.

Goldstein's answer? C at minimum. "Could be more than that even."

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=431

Seeing all the "experts" list Stubbs in the Reds top 10, with some listing him in the top 100 overall, struck me as draft hangover rating inflation (or something like that), but this specific comment raises my expectations a bit.

I do think Stubbs will come quickly once he seems to figure it out with the bat. If he hits this year (a big if IMO), I could see a climb to AA and maybe AAA before the end of the year.

SultanOfSwing
03-04-2008, 12:39 PM
I'm not sure if this is protected content so I'll just paraphrase.

Not protected content. The exact quote:


chrismusillo (cinti): Drew Stubbs: (a) lifetime minor leaguer; (b) 4th OF for a few years and then out of baseball; (c) bona fide starter for a few years

Kevin Goldstein: C -- at the very least. Could be more than that even.

flyer85
03-04-2008, 02:12 PM
Trade him for Juan Pierre!

:bash:

don't even think it ...

WMR
03-04-2008, 09:39 PM
People need to realize that Doug is ALWAYS going to give a prospect the benefit of the doubt... even when they haven't really earned it. It's just how he's wired, apparently.

dougdirt
03-04-2008, 09:41 PM
People need to realize that Doug is ALWAYS going to give a prospect the benefit of the doubt... even when they haven't really earned it. It's just how he's wired, apparently.

Not really. Every prospect is difference, so I can't really give a general response to giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I certainly don't.

cincyinco
03-04-2008, 10:27 PM
People need to realize that Doug is ALWAYS going to give a prospect the benefit of the doubt... even when they haven't really earned it. It's just how he's wired, apparently.


Absolutely not true. He's a Maloney hater. ;)

dougdirt
03-04-2008, 10:30 PM
Absolutely not true. He's a Maloney hater. ;)

Not a hater, just not as much of a believer as some lol.

cincyinco
03-04-2008, 10:47 PM
Ain't gotta lie to kick it Doug ;)

Its okay, I've been a believer in him since he was drafted.

BRM
03-05-2008, 10:54 AM
This thread needs to be nominated for the "Thread that will never die" award in our annual awards.

Bip Roberts
03-05-2008, 12:00 PM
:bash:

don't even think it ...
:p:

Bip Roberts
03-05-2008, 12:02 PM
Everyone get their opinions in soon because once the season starts I want no flip flopping!

dougdirt
03-05-2008, 12:14 PM
Everyone get their opinions in soon because once the season starts I want no flip flopping!

I think I am on the fence on this one..... ;)

New Fever
03-05-2008, 03:13 PM
From Jim Callis Espn Chat Today:


Ben (Centerville, OH): Drew Stubbs of the Reds just cracked the BA top 100, how high can he climb if he has a healthy, productive year?

Jim Callis: (2:08 PM ET ) He could soar up the list if he hits. The bat is the only tool anyone questions--he's a Gold Glove CF with at least 20-20 potential. He made some strides after choking up on the bat late last year, and if he were to come out and hit .300 this year, he'd be in the top 25, at least.

kaldaniels
03-05-2008, 03:23 PM
Everyone get their opinions in soon because once the season starts I want no flip flopping!

Put me down as thinking Stubbs will have a nice year...ending up with a stint at Louisville as the season winds down. :thumbup:

As a Browns fan here...I recall Phil Savage saying a few years back that one key to building a team is to keep hitting "singles, not necessarily homeruns" in the draft. Drew Stubbs was a single if you ask me. Lincecum was there, yes, but I'd argue he was a riskier pick.

My assumption is that due to his awesome defense and still blooming bat..Stubbs will become a major leaguer one day. Realize that when I call Stubbs a "single".

Either way, if he makes it or does not...that draft will not single-handedly doom this franchise.

RedsManRick
03-05-2008, 05:56 PM
Put me down in the mediocre season camp. I think he does something like .260/.320/.395, but still gets moved up to Chattanooga at some point. The FSL can eat hitters alive and I don't think they'll want to subject him to a confidence killing experience for the whole year. I'd love to see the contact rate come up and the CS to go down. If he can replicate his Dayton numbers, I'll happily eat my crow, as that would put him on the "Some time in 2010" timeline.

dougdirt
03-05-2008, 06:27 PM
RMR, you see a decent sized drop in his walk rate there. Care to explain why?

TRF
03-05-2008, 06:38 PM
It took him half a season to hit the ball well in the Midwest League, and even then he didn't really tear the league up, he just hit well. Now he's going to a league that eats up hitters. It's a tough hill to climb, and you have to ask yourself: is his overall body of work too small a sample to make any judgments? Maybe. He did hit well in college. Does that make him a byproduct of the metal bats? He did have a foot injury, but how injured was he? And does the injury play into his poor SB% or is that a general lack of instincts.

Without a doubt though, Stubbs was a poor pick. Wrong guy, wrong skillset. You don't go toolsy two years in a row when your best/only pitching prospect is a skinny HS pitcher that may or may not ever reach the big leagues.

dougdirt
03-05-2008, 06:43 PM
It took him half a season to hit the ball well in the Midwest League, and even then he didn't really tear the league up, he just hit well. Now he's going to a league that eats up hitters. It's a tough hill to climb, and you have to ask yourself: is his overall body of work too small a sample to make any judgments? Maybe. He did hit well in college. Does that make him a byproduct of the metal bats? He did have a foot injury, but how injured was he? And does the injury play into his poor SB% or is that a general lack of instincts.

Without a doubt though, Stubbs was a poor pick. Wrong guy, wrong skillset. You don't go toolsy two years in a row when your best/only pitching prospect is a skinny HS pitcher that may or may not ever reach the big leagues.

His turftoe was bad enough that rest didn't cure it over the offseason from 2006 to 2007 and that he required surgery in the offseason to have it fixed so he would be ready for 2008. I think that it did play into his poor SB%.

As for the second comment about a skinny HS pitcher that may or may not ever reach the big leagues..... what on earth does that have to do with anything?

RedsManRick
03-05-2008, 07:26 PM
RMR, you see a decent sized drop in his walk rate there. Care to explain why?

Stubbs generally has an advanced approach. He's not likely to increase his walk rate in the future. He's patient and works the count, but struggles with making contact regularly. Outside of his speed, those are old player skills. In college, using a metal bat, his decent power translated that contact in to a solid batting average thanks to a higher line drive rate and more homers. Using wood, that power output decreased and the average dropped with it. Less homers and liners => more weak balls in play => more outs => lower average.

However, as he moves up the chain, he's going to face more pitchers who have movement they can locate increasingly well. It is my extremely amateur understanding that an ability to make contact is one of the skills most difficult to develop, so it's not likely he'll make major strides there. As pitchers challenge him more with their better stuff, he's not going to get as deep in to counts as he could in college and the low minors. He's going to be forced to swing more and I don't think the results will be pretty. Perhaps choking up on the bat will be his savior, we'll see.

Again, I think the Dickerson comp is instructive. Dickerson dropped from .303/.410/.408 (.14 BB/PA) in A ball to .236/.325/.383 (.11 BB/PA) in the FSL. The average plummeted. Dickerson did show a nice burst of power and the walk rate returned in Chattanooga, but the FSL was not kind to him.

In retrospect, I think the average will probably be .240ish rather than .260 and the OBP might drop only to .310 -- a smaller decrease in walk rate than I suggested earlier, but a worse overall performance.

Patrick Bateman
03-05-2008, 09:42 PM
I'll state my Drew Stubbs case again, because evidently, he has few supporters. Firstly, I'll say that I thought his selection at the draft was a horrendous one. I badly wanted Tim Lincecum. Anyways, I think it's clear that a great degree of the hatred for Stubbs is due to because of who we could have had instead. Clearly, Stubbs was not the best choice at that spot, nor will he likely turn out to provide the best overall value of the alternatives. Still, that has to do with the Reds' management making poor choices, not Drew Stubbs' prospect ranking.

Yes, Stubbs' track record to date has been pretty spotty. However, this hasn't concerneed me as much as it would for the average college hitter. When he was drafted, most scouts suggested that he was raw for his age, and that he would have a tough time adjusting to pro ball. So it took roughly a year and a half as an adjustment period, but it seems like he's starting to get. So regarding Stubbs, I feel fairly comfortable in forgetting his first year. It really wasn't that surprising. If he truly has begun to figure things out at the plate, he will move fast, and he will become a very valuableplayer.

Because of his skill set, Stubbs does not have to be an absolute dynamo at the plate to be a valuable player. Getting top calibre fielding out of CF will be a tremendous asset to have. In fact, right now the Reds could badly use what we want Drew Stubbs to become. His overall package is not competely dissimilar to a Redszone favorite in Chris Denorfia. The people who liked Denorfia suggested that he could provide above average fielding out of centre while walking enough to provide an acceptable OBP, that is acceptable enough to be a league average CF.

With Stubbs, he possesses all of those same traits (except for worse contact rates), but has the potential to be more. Better fielder, better speed, power potential that Denorfia could never dream of, etc. So in that regard, I'm surprised that people here don't respect Stubbs' skill set very much.

I've seen arguments at one time or another suggesting players like Justin Turner or Chris Valaika were superior prospects to Stubbs because of production, but suddenly, he posts good numbers for half a season, and he's back on the radar. The difference is that Stubbs has always had big time talent. As frustrating as it was to take a raw college bat, there was always skill there. It's the reason that I've always considered him the best non "big 4" prospect in the Reds system.

This is a big season for Stubbs. It looks like he's started to discover himself as a hitter, and we'll have to wait to see if it sticks. If it does, he could easily move up a few levels this season and be ready for the bigs within 2 years. Either way, Stubbs has been risky since he's been here, and I don't expect that to change. At least it's a risk with a valuable payoff. He was the wrong choice, but that doesn't mean that he can't bring something to this organization.

SMcGavin
03-05-2008, 09:52 PM
Stubbs generally has an advanced approach. He's not likely to increase his walk rate in the future. He's patient and works the count, but struggles with making contact regularly. Outside of his speed, those are old player skills. In college, using a metal bat, his decent power translated that contact in to a solid batting average thanks to a higher line drive rate and more homers. Using wood, that power output decreased and the average dropped with it. Less homers and liners => more weak balls in play => more outs => lower average.

However, as he moves up the chain, he's going to face more pitchers who have movement they can locate increasingly well. It is my extremely amateur understanding that an ability to make contact is one of the skills most difficult to develop, so it's not likely he'll make major strides there. As pitchers challenge him more with their better stuff, he's not going to get as deep in to counts as he could in college and the low minors. He's going to be forced to swing more and I don't think the results will be pretty. Perhaps choking up on the bat will be his savior, we'll see.

Again, I think the Dickerson comp is instructive. Dickerson dropped from .303/.410/.408 (.14 BB/PA) in A ball to .236/.325/.383 (.11 BB/PA) in the FSL. The average plummeted. Dickerson did show a nice burst of power and the walk rate returned in Chattanooga, but the FSL was not kind to him.

In retrospect, I think the average will probably be .240ish rather than .260 and the OBP might drop only to .310 -- a smaller decrease in walk rate than I suggested earlier, but a worse overall performance.

Interesting analysis, and it makes a lot of sense. For what it's worth Adam Dunn, another guy with an "old man" skill set, saw his average skyrocket when he moved to AA and AAA (walk rate was pretty constant). I'm guessing he's the exception rather than the rule.

I agree with the others that the FSL is going to be tough for Stubbs. We saw what happened last year to Valaika, and he had a much better track record going in. Just to clarify, have the Reds announced that they are sending Stubbs to Sarasota? Is it not out of the realm of possibility he could go straight to Chattanooga?

edabbs44
03-05-2008, 10:17 PM
I'llBecause of his skill set, Stubbs does not have to be an absolute dynamo at the plate to be a valuable player. Getting top calibre fielding out of CF will be a tremendous asset to have. In fact, right now the Reds could badly use what we want Drew Stubbs to become. His overall package is not competely dissimilar to a Redszone favorite in Chris Denorfia. The people who liked Denorfia suggested that he could provide above average fielding out of centre while walking enough to provide an acceptable OBP, that is acceptable enough to be a league average CF.

With Stubbs, he possesses all of those same traits (except for worse contact rates), but has the potential to be more. Better fielder, better speed, power potential that Denorfia could never dream of, etc. So in that regard, I'm surprised that people here don't respect Stubbs' skill set very much.

Potential. Skill sets. Overall package.

The only thing Stubbs is missing so far is perfomance.

By the way, Denorfia's 23 year old season in high A he hit .312/.416/.532 in 300+ PAs before getting called up to AA. Guess who will probably be starting in high A at the age of 23 this year?

If Stubbs does that this year, I think everyone will be happy. Everyone.

New Fever
03-06-2008, 02:43 AM
Potential. Skill sets. Overall package.

The only thing Stubbs is missing so far is perfomance.

By the way, Denorfia's 23 year old season in high A he hit .312/.416/.532 in 300+ PAs before getting called up to AA. Guess who will probably be starting in high A at the age of 23 this year?

If Stubbs does that this year, I think everyone will be happy. Everyone.

If Stubbs does that he will be a Top 5 prospect in baseball!

TRF
03-06-2008, 05:59 PM
His turftoe was bad enough that rest didn't cure it over the offseason from 2006 to 2007 and that he required surgery in the offseason to have it fixed so he would be ready for 2008. I think that it did play into his poor SB%.

As for the second comment about a skinny HS pitcher that may or may not ever reach the big leagues..... what on earth does that have to do with anything?

It goes to need. the Reds needed serious pitching help in the minors as well as the major league level. Drafting a college pitcher was the only smart thing to do. Drafting another OF, especially one with ????'s about his offensive game, not smart. And his performance to date, coupled with the fact that some college pitchers taken after him are already having very good success at the major league level makes it worse.

dougdirt
03-06-2008, 09:07 PM
It goes to need. the Reds needed serious pitching help in the minors as well as the major league level. Drafting a college pitcher was the only smart thing to do. Drafting another OF, especially one with ????'s about his offensive game, not smart. And his performance to date, coupled with the fact that some college pitchers taken after him are already having very good success at the major league level makes it worse.

Never draft for need in baseball. Its beyond stupid.

edabbs44
03-06-2008, 09:48 PM
Never draft for need in baseball. Its beyond stupid.

I think that theory is going to start to go by the wayside.

If you say something like "We need a #4 starter" and draft a starter, then that is stupid.

If you say "We need pitching throughout our system like we need oxygen" then I would say it is a different story.

I asked this last year and I will ask it until someone gives me a legit answer. How is this team supposed to get enough pitching to compete if they are afraid to spend the money to get the better prospects, who are typically taken towards the top of the draft?

PS: I know he drafted people like Watson and Lotzkar. But I am talking about the bigger names. The front line picks. The ones that the Reds have passed up the last two years for Stubbs and Mesoraco.

dougdirt
03-06-2008, 10:19 PM
I think that theory is going to start to go by the wayside.

If you say something like "We need a #4 starter" and draft a starter, then that is stupid.

If you say "We need pitching throughout our system like we need oxygen" then I would say it is a different story.
With how much draft picks, no matter where they are drafted in the first round flop, taking someone that you have as a lesser overall player is a horrible choice.



I asked this last year and I will ask it until someone gives me a legit answer. How is this team supposed to get enough pitching to compete if they are afraid to spend the money to get the better prospects, who are typically taken towards the top of the draft?

PS: I know he drafted people like Watson and Lotzkar. But I am talking about the bigger names. The front line picks. The ones that the Reds have passed up the last two years for Stubbs and Mesoraco.
You act as if the Reds don't have starting pitching in AAA right now or higher with Bailey, Cueto and Maloney. This team has pitching, they haven't been 'afraid to spend the money'. They are spending slot money on these guys they are drafting, they aren't making value picks and taking Matt Bush #1 overall here. Just because you don't like what they have done, or it hasn't worked out YET, doesn't mean it wasn't the right choice at the time.
Yeah, they could have taken Joba Chamberlain or Tim Lincecum, but had things fallen slightly differently they could have taken Brad Lincoln (who went ahead of both and already has a nice surgery to his name).

edabbs44
03-06-2008, 10:41 PM
With how much draft picks, no matter where they are drafted in the first round flop, taking someone that you have as a lesser overall player is a horrible choice.

There is a difference between taking someone lesser just because they are a pitcher and what I am saying. I'm not saying take the 17th best prospect overall first just because he is a pitcher. I am saying to target the right pitching if it is there. Lincecum, Scherzer and Brett Anderson in 2006. Porcello and Harvey in 2007. Top talents who were passed over.


You act as if the Reds don't have starting pitching in AAA right now or higher with Bailey, Cueto and Maloney. This team has pitching, they haven't been 'afraid to spend the money'. They are spending slot money on these guys they are drafting, they aren't making value picks and taking Matt Bush #1 overall here. Just because you don't like what they have done, or it hasn't worked out YET, doesn't mean it wasn't the right choice at the time.

This team doesn't have nearly enough pitching throughout the organization. Maybe they haven't been afraid to spend slot money, but they haven't been all that free with their money either.


Yeah, they could have taken Joba Chamberlain or Tim Lincecum, but had things fallen slightly differently they could have taken Brad Lincoln (who went ahead of both and already has a nice surgery to his name).

TJ surgery doesn't scare me. If he wrecked his shoulder, I'd be with you on that.

Then again, Stubbs has been a walking calamity since he was drafted with his thigh, concussion and turf toe. Not exactly the picture of health.

Joba? Sure. Lincecum? Sure. But the ones that really kill me are taking Watson over Brett Anderson and not drafting guys like Matt Harvey and Jordan Walden as they plummeted. If they drafted those guys, Stubbs wouldn't bother me as much. But they didn't draft BPA in any of the rounds in '06.

RedsManRick
03-06-2008, 11:39 PM
Interesting analysis, and it makes a lot of sense. For what it's worth Adam Dunn, another guy with an "old man" skill set, saw his average skyrocket when he moved to AA and AAA (walk rate was pretty constant). I'm guessing he's the exception rather than the rule?

Adam Dunn was 21 when he made his AA debut. Stubbs will likely be 24. Also, Dunn's average "skyrocketed" in a year in which he had 140 PA. That's 6 hits better from his previous average. Notice his massive power spike in 2001 -- his average rose because his power rose. Give him the same HR rate, and his average would've stayed put. Unfortunately, as he moved up to the majors, his contact rate dropped and he's the player he is today.

If Stubbs is able to find some power, his average will rise. But given his physique, age, and history, I don't think we're going to see a Dunnesque power spike -- especially not in Sarasota. And by the time he does find his power, if he finds it, his contact rate might be too low to overcome. At 23, he's much less developed than most plus major leaguers are. He's a year younger than Votto, and he's going to get his first high A action this year. He's got a long ways to go. I hope the choking up explanation for his 2nd half surge is true, because I don't think he makes it otherwise.

dougdirt
03-07-2008, 12:32 AM
There is a difference between taking someone lesser just because they are a pitcher and what I am saying. I'm not saying take the 17th best prospect overall first just because he is a pitcher. I am saying to target the right pitching if it is there. Lincecum, Scherzer and Brett Anderson in 2006. Porcello and Harvey in 2007. Top talents who were passed over.
There were legit concerns with every single one of those guys and still concerns about all of them, although Lincecum much less than the other two. Porcello demanded a 7 million dollar deal and a major league contract. Big talent, crazy demands.



This team doesn't have nearly enough pitching throughout the organization. Maybe they haven't been afraid to spend slot money, but they haven't been all that free with their money either.
There aren't many teams in baseball that can claim they have nearly the amount of pitching the Reds do. There is a little problem with the guys in High A/AA last year as I guess outside of Cueto that really leaves just Lecure (#4/5 type) and Daryl Thompson (3/4/5 type depending on his health and development).
I don't know, I think you expect the Reds to spend with the top 5 teams every draft and pay 8th, 9th and 10th rounders a million bucks and they just can't afford to do that like the Red Sox or Yankees can.



TJ surgery doesn't scare me. If he wrecked his shoulder, I'd be with you on that.
If he was drafted by the Reds, paid that much money and had the same issue, I doubt you would be as nonchalant about it as you are currently being.



Then again, Stubbs has been a walking calamity since he was drafted with his thigh, concussion and turf toe. Not exactly the picture of health.

True, although outside of the concussion, which is fine, none of those have been known to derail a players career. Tommy John Surgery, even today, ruins peoples careers. Not as much as it used to, but it still does.



Joba? Sure. Lincecum? Sure. But the ones that really kill me are taking Watson over Brett Anderson and not drafting guys like Matt Harvey and Jordan Walden as they plummeted. If they drafted those guys, Stubbs wouldn't bother me as much. But they didn't draft BPA in any of the rounds in '06.

Matt Harvey didn't sign. Its doubtful he would have signed with the Reds either, so drafting him would have just left us without a top 5 round draft pick (although I guess we had one of those anyways). Jordan Walden got a million bucks as a 12th round draft pick. He wasn't a 12th round talent, but thats money that a lot of teams can't just give up for non first round guys. That is honestly enough money to sign everyone they drafted past the second round to a contract combined. Its a large chunk of the draft budget for most teams.

As for Brett Anderson over Sean Watson....

Give me the guy with the mid 90s fastball, a projectable pitchers body, an average slider, above average (when on) knuckle curve and an iffy change up over the big kid who tops out at 90 MPH who has real good command and is using it to look very good against inexperienced hitters.

camisadelgolf
03-07-2008, 05:22 AM
I don't think it's fair to assess Stubbs based on statistics. The organization openly acknowledged a big flaw of his (contact rate), which tells me that they're going to work to improve it. Therefore, I think Stubbs has been asked to make adjustments while he's at the lower levels so he doesn't have to make them when he's in Cincinnati. If the adjustments weren't made, I think we would be seeing someone with more success in A-ball but less success later on. When those adjustments feel normal for him (and maybe choking up was one of them), I think we'll see a spike in his production.

For the record, how much would you pay for a center fielder who OPSed at .720 and played Gold Glove-caliber defense? Would anyone here sign that player to a three-year, $3.6MM contract (total)?

M2
03-07-2008, 01:34 PM
Now that I know it's not fair to take the things Stubbs doesn't do well into account when assessing him, that really does change my outlook. Suddenly he's perfect. In fact, so is everyone else in the system.

Bunnies are dancing on the rainbow that just popped out my rear too.

edabbs44
03-07-2008, 10:20 PM
There aren't many teams in baseball that can claim they have nearly the amount of pitching the Reds do. There is a little problem with the guys in High A/AA last year as I guess outside of Cueto that really leaves just Lecure (#4/5 type) and Daryl Thompson (3/4/5 type depending on his health and development).

Here's something from Ask BA when someone asked for the top 5 ranked farm systems based on pitching:


If you were to evaluate farm systems based on pitching only, how would you rank the top five?

Mike Acevedo
New York
We presented our initial farm-system rankings in the 2008 Prospect Handbook, and though we'll revise them for our upcoming Minor League Preview to reflect trades that have occurred since then, the top five likely will remain the same: Rays, Red Sox, Reds, Rangers, Yankees.

Looking solely at pitchers, the rankings would be much different. Here are my top five organizations in terms of mound prospects, with their overall ranking in the Handbook in parentheses:

1. Rays (1). Tampa Bay has the best overall farm system because it has a strong balance between hitters and pitchers, and as a group, the arms are more impressive. David Price, Wade Davis and Jake McGee all ranked in the top 17 on our overall Top 100 Prospects list, and Jeff Niemann snuck on at the end. Besides frontline pitchers, the Rays also have plenty of depth with Jeremy Hellickson, Chris Mason, Glenn Gibson, Juan Salas, Alex Cobb, Eduardo Morlan and Josh Butler. The rich may get richer, too, as Tampa Bay has the No. 1 overall pick in the June draft and could target Missouri righthander Aaron Crow or San Diego lefthander Brian Matusz.

2. Yankees (5). The obvious guys are Joba Chamberlain and Ian Kennedy, who were spectacular in brief big league stints last year and are counted on heavily for 2008. Alan Horne, Jeff Marquez and Ross Ohlendorf all could contribute in New York this year as well, while Andrew Brackman, Mark Melancon and Humberto Sanchez and Dellin Betances all combine upside with medical question marks.

3. Orioles (16, will move up a couple of spots after the Erik Bedard trade, though Adam Jones doesn't count as a prospect). Chris Tillman, part of the Bedard deal, is a Top 100 prospect, as are Radhames Liz and Troy Patton, part of the Miguel Tejada trade. A year from now, Jake Arrieta and Chorye Spoone could be Top 100 guys, and Pedro Beato and Brandon Erbe have power arms. Garrett Olson is a lefty who knows how to pitch, though he nibbled too much in his big league debut.

4. Rangers (4). Eric Hurley will pitch in the majors this year, and Matt Harrison may join him, but the strength of the Texas system is very young arms. Neftali Feliz, Michael Main, Blake Beavan, Neil Ramirez, Fabio Castillo, Tommy Hunter and Wilmer Font have yet to reach full-season ball, while Kasey Kiker has advanced to low Class A and Omar Poveda has made five starts in high Class A.

5. Athletics (27, will move up to around 10 after trading Dan Haren and Nick Swisher for a slew of prospects). The best arms in Oakland's system are recent trade acquisitions Gio Gonzalez, Brett Anderson and Fautino de los Santos. Adding them to the previous inventory that included Trevor Cahill, James Simmons, Henry Rodriguez and Andrew Bailey put the A's past the Twins, Rockies, Indians and Dodgers for the last spot on this top five.

That means, according to BA, they are at best 10th.

dougdirt
03-07-2008, 10:49 PM
Thats a whole lot of hope coming from the Rangers.

They have Eric Hurley in AAA not exactly being too much but average. Then they have a bunch of potential that mostly hasn't even touched Low A yet, much less high A or AA.

While that is obviously just my opinion, there is a whole lot of hope in that specific group of guys. The Reds on the flip side have guys like Bailey, Cueto, Maloney, Pelland, Roenicke and Jared Burton (who BA counts still). I would take our group without even thinking about bringing in swing guys like Thompson, Lecure, Fisher or talking about Watson, Lutz, Wood or Pedro Viola.

dougdirt
03-07-2008, 11:00 PM
And going even further.... the Twins rank ahead of the Reds in pitching?

Their #1 prospect is a 26 year old left handed pitcher who has 434 career minor league strikeouts in 702 innings. After that its not like like they have tons of pitchers in the system with tremendous upside.

I just can't see them being ahead of the Reds either.

edabbs44
03-07-2008, 11:44 PM
Thats a whole lot of hope coming from the Rangers.

They have Eric Hurley in AAA not exactly being too much but average. Then they have a bunch of potential that mostly hasn't even touched Low A yet, much less high A or AA.

While that is obviously just my opinion, there is a whole lot of hope in that specific group of guys. The Reds on the flip side have guys like Bailey, Cueto, Maloney, Pelland, Roenicke and Jared Burton (who BA counts still). I would take our group without even thinking about bringing in swing guys like Thompson, Lecure, Fisher or talking about Watson, Lutz, Wood or Pedro Viola.

I think that after Homer and Cueto that the rest of them are middle of the road guys. I think less of them compared to many here.

But I'm not defending BA's rankings. Twins are a shock.

Bonzo
03-08-2008, 08:07 AM
And going even further.... the Twins rank ahead of the Reds in pitching?

Their #1 prospect is a 26 year old left handed pitcher who has 434 career minor league strikeouts in 702 innings. After that its not like like they have tons of pitchers in the system with tremendous upside.

I just can't see them being ahead of the Reds either.

Outside of Blackburn, these guys say otherwise: Guerra, Robertson, Perkins, Swarzak, Manship, Mulvey, Humber, Duensing, Sosa, etc. Out of those I listed, Blackburn, Humber, Mulvey, Perkins, Swarzak, and Duensing could contribute in 2008. The Twins have a TON of young pitching talent stockpiled in the system.

dougdirt
03-08-2008, 02:06 PM
Outside of Blackburn, these guys say otherwise: Guerra, Robertson, Perkins, Swarzak, Manship, Mulvey, Humber, Duensing, Sosa, etc. Out of those I listed, Blackburn, Humber, Mulvey, Perkins, Swarzak, and Duensing could contribute in 2008. The Twins have a TON of young pitching talent stockpiled in the system.

Yeah, I guess I didn't account for the Mets guys which certainly makes a difference. Guerra is a better prospect than Blackburn, and that certainly boosts what they have. Still don't think it puts them ahead of the Reds though.