PDA

View Full Version : Is it time to trade Homer Bailey?



harangatang
11-02-2006, 05:20 PM
With Homer Bailey becoming one of the top minor league prospects in all of the minor leagues, many people are excited about the future with this kid. I think the future looks bright with this kid but the Reds have had similar top pitching prospects such as Gruler and Howington who have went down the drain. So with the Reds past record is it time to get something of value for Homer Bailey while the Reds can get something of value for him? Or do you say the Reds should let him still develop and hopefully succeed in a Reds uniform?

SultanOfSwing
11-02-2006, 05:28 PM
I wouldn't trade him. He is a lot different than Gruler or Howington. They never did this well, but IIRC were just highly-regarded draft picks. I don't think Homer would net enough to justify trading him. The only scenario I can think of is if Florida was willing to part with Willis and Cabrera and Homer was needed in the trade without the Reds including EE. To me, that is the only situation that I would trade him. Just MO. :)

klw
11-02-2006, 05:29 PM
How about to the Mets for Victor Zambrano:eek:

reds1869
11-02-2006, 05:30 PM
No way. Homer Bailey has the potential to be a real star in the majors. Unless a team is willing to give up an established number one with a few years left on the tires, I hang on to Homer. You shouldn't trade a guy because he might not pan out--that is just years of frustration/bad management talking in your post.

Patrick Bateman
11-02-2006, 05:31 PM
With Homer Bailey becoming one of the top minor league prospects in all of the minor leagues, many people are excited about the future with this kid. I think the future looks bright with this kid but the Reds have had similar top pitching prospects such as Gruler and Howington who have went down the drain. So with the Reds past record is it time to get something of value for Homer Bailey while he van get the Reds something of value? Or do you say the Reds should let him still develop and hopefully succeed in a Reds uniform?

It depends on what you can get for him. I wouldn't trade him for the sake of trading him. Sometimes you have to be patient. The Reds will never develop an arm if we trade all of them because we are afraid of the past.

I doubt we can get the kind of return it would take to neccessitate moving him anyways.

Red in Atl
11-02-2006, 05:31 PM
Yeah lets trade the only blue chip pitching prospect we have. Once we get about 4-5, then I'd consider it.

Tom Servo
11-02-2006, 05:33 PM
Only if we're getting a Halladay/Santana/Carpenter or an extremely bountiful return.

flyer85
11-02-2006, 05:40 PM
Howington and Gruler were never similar to Bailey. Their injuries started before they had minor league success.

Falls City Beer
11-02-2006, 05:43 PM
I'd trade Bailey as the principal in a deal for a MLB starter or a monster bat.

Johnny Footstool
11-02-2006, 05:46 PM
There is no such thing as an untouchable prospect. If the deal is right, trade him.

Strikes Out Looking
11-02-2006, 05:48 PM
Maybe only to the Sox with Dunn for Papelbom and Manny. But I'd have both Papelbom and Manny have about 5 MRI's on various body parts (and have the Sox pay for it).

registerthis
11-02-2006, 05:59 PM
I'd trade Bailey as the principal in a deal for a MLB starter or a monster bat.

Right. The question isn't *should* the Reds trade Bailey, it's whom the Reds should get in return. I don't think you can look at any player on this team as untouchable, and that certainly extends to Bailey. I'd like to see him come up with the Reds and have success, nothing would make me happier. But the fact remains is that he's a prospect who hasn't pitched an inning above AA. If someone comes along looking to deal a top-caliber pitcher or--as FCB says--a monster bat, the Reds would be foolish not to consider the offer.

We can't become blinded by the idea of what Bailey could potentially do. He hasn't done anything yet, and if the last decade of futility has taught Reds fans anything, it should be that prospects are *never* a sure thing.

dougdirt
11-02-2006, 06:01 PM
No.

BRM
11-02-2006, 06:14 PM
There is no such thing as an untouchable prospect. If the deal is right, trade him.

Exactly. Everyone should be available if the right deal came along.

red-in-la
11-02-2006, 06:24 PM
Ask yourself.....would you have traded Roy Oswalt just before he went to AAA?

I your answer is yes, find another sport.....:help:

BRM
11-02-2006, 06:33 PM
Ask yourself.....would you have traded Roy Oswalt just before he went to AAA?

I your answer is yes, find another sport.....:help:

So you are saying no way you would trade Bailey regardless of the return?

jimbo
11-02-2006, 06:46 PM
This organization has to be successful at developing good pitching in their minor league system in order to maintain any winning consistancy, and trading the best pitching prospect you've had since Tom Browning is not the answer. I probably consider Bailey the only untouchable player in the whole organization.

puca
11-02-2006, 06:54 PM
But the only moster bat or MLB starting pitcher Bailey would fetch would be already highly compensated and probably close to free agency. It is hard to build a competitive team without young talented players and it is harder to develop young talented players if you trade your few promising ones away.

This team has too few upper level pitching prospects and too many holes to fill at the major league level to make trading Homer a good idea.

JaxRed
11-02-2006, 07:01 PM
Absolutely no.

M2
11-02-2006, 07:35 PM
Bailey may or may not be a factor someday. I wouldn't give him up for just anyone, but if someone put the right major league arm on the table, I'd pull that trigger.

HBP
11-02-2006, 07:39 PM
You don't trade Homer Bailey. You trade for more Homer Bailey's. That's the only way the Reds are ever going to have a true playoff contending pitching staff; development.

RFS62
11-02-2006, 07:39 PM
I can't imagine anyone giving us enough return to make it worthwhile.

Krusty
11-02-2006, 07:40 PM
Maybe if you offer Dunn and Bailey to the Twins for LHP Johan Santana and RHP Joe Nathan, I would consider it.

BigRed
11-02-2006, 07:47 PM
All I can say is that the other team would really have to overpay. They would have to bowl us over with something amazing. Otherwise, let's see if Homer continues to dominate. He may become the next Clemens. You have to give him a chance to do that here. When was the last time that the Reds organization developed a solid # 1 starter? I am not sure that I can think of anyone since Mario Soto.

M2
11-02-2006, 07:57 PM
I can't imagine anyone giving us enough return to make it worthwhile.

That'll probably be the case. Kids like Bailey are usually viewed like the Hope Diamond by the clubs that have them and like the flavor of the day by other clubs.

Here's a list of pitchers who made BA's top 10 overall prospects from 1990-2004.

Steve Avery
Ben McDonald
Kiki Jones
Todd Van Poppel
Roger Salkeld
Arthur Lee Rhodes
Brien Taylor
Frankie Rodriguez
Pedro Martinez
Jason Bere
Allen Watson
Tyrone Hill
James Baldwin
Jose Silva
Paul Wilson
Alan Benes
Livan Hernandez
Kerry Wood
Matt White
Kris Benson
Carl Pavano
Rick Ankiel
Bruce Chen
Brad Penny
Ryan Anderson
Matt Clement
John Patterson
Josh Beckett
Jon Rauch
Ben Sheets
C.C. Sabathia
Mark Prior
Juan Cruz
Jesse Foppert
Jose Contreras
Gavin Floyd
Francisco Rogriguez
Edwin Jackson
Greg Miller

So far seven of those guys have made their way onto the Reds' roster.

westofyou
11-02-2006, 07:59 PM
Maybe if you offer Dunn and Bailey to the Twins for LHP Johan Santana and RHP Joe Nathan, I would consider it.

I'll drive them there if that deal happens.

Rojo
11-02-2006, 07:59 PM
Sure I'd part with him for the right return, I just can't imagine what that would be. It would have to be a young, big-league proven, not overused, pitcher who's years away from a big contract.

Names?

mth123
11-02-2006, 09:38 PM
But the only moster bat or MLB starting pitcher Bailey would fetch would be already highly compensated and probably close to free agency. It is hard to build a competitive team without young talented players and it is harder to develop young talented players if you trade your few promising ones away.

This team has too few upper level pitching prospects and too many holes to fill at the major league level to make trading Homer a good idea.

I agree completely.

mth123
11-02-2006, 09:47 PM
That'll probably be the case. Kids like Bailey are usually viewed like the Hope Diamond by the clubs that have them and like the flavor of the day by other clubs.

Here's a list of pitchers who made BA's top 10 overall prospects from 1990-2004.

Steve Avery
Ben McDonald
Kiki Jones
Todd Van Poppel
Roger Salkeld
Arthur Lee Rhodes
Brien Taylor
Frankie Rodriguez
Pedro Martinez
Jason Bere
Allen Watson
Tyrone Hill
James Baldwin
Jose Silva
Paul Wilson
Alan Benes
Livan Hernandez
Kerry Wood
Matt White
Kris Benson
Carl Pavano
Rick Ankiel
Bruce Chen
Brad Penny
Ryan Anderson
Matt Clement
John Patterson
Josh Beckett
Jon Rauch
Ben Sheets
C.C. Sabathia
Mark Prior
Juan Cruz
Jesse Foppert
Jose Contreras
Gavin Floyd
Francisco Rogriguez
Edwin Jackson
Greg Miller

So far seven of those guys have made their way onto the Reds' roster.

This list is exactly why you won't get enough return to trade him and why you don't trade the farm to get more like him. Gotta draft 'em and develop 'em. You can trade for them, but only stars that can't be kept because of impending free agency should be traded or a package of non-essentials that may get a guy once in a while (Kazmir for example).

Will M
11-02-2006, 11:06 PM
The beauty of Bailey is that if he does develop into the stud we hope he could:

1. be an above average pitcher early in his career

2. be a stud when he isn't making huge bucks

3. stay a Red later in his career because this is where he is comfortable

Do NOT trade the few A prospects we have , they are KEY for a small market team to stay competitive ( cheap good young talent )

shredda2000
11-02-2006, 11:11 PM
No...no...and...NO

As many others have said, you need to develop within the org if you want to be a successful small market team.

lo ryder
11-02-2006, 11:42 PM
If upper management is smart, no way right now. With all the rave reviews and anticipation of Homer breaking into the bigs, they are sitting on a gold mine with attendance and all the benefits that goes along with same regarding revenue.

I, for one, am really looking forward to a ML debut of a pitching prospect from within the organization. I would say stick with him and see if for once in a blue moon the Reds can develop a young fireballer.

M2
11-03-2006, 02:13 AM
This list is exactly why you won't get enough return to trade him and why you don't trade the farm to get more like him. Gotta draft 'em and develop 'em. You can trade for them, but only stars that can't be kept because of impending free agency should be traded or a package of non-essentials that may get a guy once in a while (Kazmir for example).

Then again, the list shows you exactly how wrong draft 'em and develop 'em can go even when it looks like a sure thing.

I don't know what the market for a prospect arm will be this winter. I suspect that when push comes to shove, other teams won't be dealing many established arms this winter. Yet if a club put the right pitcher on the market, say the Astros decide they've gotten too old and it's time to see what Roy Oswalt can fetch (not that I expect them to do that seeing that he just signed a big, honking extension), then I say the Reds need to drop the platitudes and consider moving Bailey.

I'm not saying Krivsky should call up 29 other teams and shop Bailey. Yet if opportunity knocks then I say don't fail to answer the door.

mth123
11-03-2006, 05:20 AM
Then again, the list shows you exactly how wrong draft 'em and develop 'em can go even when it looks like a sure thing.

I don't know what the market for a prospect arm will be this winter. I suspect that when push comes to shove, other teams won't be dealing many established arms this winter. Yet if a club put the right pitcher on the market, say the Astros decide they've gotten too old and it's time to see what Roy Oswalt can fetch (not that I expect them to do that seeing that he just signed a big, honking extension), then I say the Reds need to drop the platitudes and consider moving Bailey.

I'm not saying Krivsky should call up 29 other teams and shop Bailey. Yet if opportunity knocks then I say don't fail to answer the door.

I agree that if a team gives enough in spite of the evidence your earlier list presented, then do it. I trade anyone in baseball except Johan Santana straight-up for Oswalt.

steig
11-03-2006, 08:36 AM
Bailey could be stud early in his career but he also could end up like Liriano with elbow problems. I would trade Bailey in a heart beat for a top of the rotation, young starter. Somebody like Willis or Santana and get them to sign a contract extension before the trade is completed. They are proven and Bailey is still very unknown.

Chip R
11-03-2006, 09:55 AM
I wonder if other teams value him as highly as the Reds do?

ChatterRed
11-03-2006, 10:12 AM
We're a small market team. We need to develop our own. We will not get enough in return for him. No team is going to trade multiple proven studs for an unproven potential star. That is just ludicrous. Sure, saying for the right return.........well, duh. But be honest.........if you were the White Sox, would you trade 2 of the best Starting Pitchers in the majors for one minor league stud pitcher? No.

This thread is ignorant.

Johnny Footstool
11-03-2006, 10:27 AM
We're a small market team. We need to develop our own. We will not get enough in return for him. No team is going to trade multiple proven studs for an unproven potential star. That is just ludicrous. Sure, saying for the right return.........well, duh. But be honest.........if you were the White Sox, would you trade 2 of the best Starting Pitchers in the majors for one minor league stud pitcher? No.

This thread is ignorant.

No more so than the last line of your response.

Pitching prospects, no matter how highly touted, are still prospects. Bailey is being heralded as a savior even though he has yet to log a single inning above AA. Many a slip between cup and lip.

A "never trade your prospects" philosophy can leave your system littered with Ty Howingtons.

Kc61
11-03-2006, 10:42 AM
I would keep him, for sure. But all fans (myself included) have to be cautious in their expectations. So many star pitching prospects flame out, or get hurt, or fail when exposed to big league lineups.

I'm afraid people are prematurely putting Homer in Cooperstown.

So, Reds should keep him, but shouldn't rely on his success. Other pitching moves need to be made.

BRM
11-03-2006, 10:54 AM
A "never trade your prospects" philosophy can leave your system littered with Ty Howingtons.

Absolutely. No one here is advocating trading Bailey just for the sake of trading him. If someone offered a Santana or Oswalt, the Reds would be foolish not to listen. If the offers are Matt Clement or Joe Kennedy, then you pass and hope Bailey can make it to the majors someday.

registerthis
11-03-2006, 10:56 AM
Ask yourself.....would you have traded Roy Oswalt just before he went to AAA?

I your answer is yes, find another sport.....:help:

Ask yourself......is Bailey guaranteed to become the next Roy Oswalt?

If your answer is yes, your ability to forsee the future is far better than mine. :help:

Johnny Footstool
11-03-2006, 11:14 AM
Ask yourself.....would you have traded Roy Oswalt just before he went to AAA?

I your answer is yes, find another sport.....:help:

Would you have traded Wade Miller just before he went to AAA?

harangatang
11-03-2006, 01:47 PM
We're a small market team. We need to develop our own. We will not get enough in return for him. No team is going to trade multiple proven studs for an unproven potential star. That is just ludicrous. Sure, saying for the right return.........well, duh. But be honest.........if you were the White Sox, would you trade 2 of the best Starting Pitchers in the majors for one minor league stud pitcher? No.

This thread is ignorant.Of course the Reds need to develop their own pitchers, but the showing the past results of these attempts, I wonder if that's possible. The fact of the matter is that Bailey has value right now where he may not a year or 2 from now. Actually what is just as concerning to me than the Reds inability to develop pitching is the fact that they don't trade players when their values are the highest. The Reds have shown this time and time again with players not only in the minors (Sean Casey, 2004, etc.). If the Reds would have traded away Gruler or Howington at their peak they could have got something of value for them. Instead we end up with 2 injured pitchers who will never pitch in the majors for the Reds. I'm not suggesting the Reds trade away Homer Bailey for just anyone, but if player or a combination of players of value can be obtained, I think it would be ignorant not to pull the trigger. Especially considering that the last 2 major league starters to be developed in the Reds minor league system in Tom Browning and Brett Tomko are career below league average starters (ERA+, 97 and 94, respectively).

jimbo
11-03-2006, 02:45 PM
Of course the Reds need to develop their own pitchers, but the showing the past results of these attempts, I wonder if that's possible.


Why wouldn't it be possible? Just because past management has failed does not mean the current one will, but it isn't going to happen overnight. Just because it's failed in the past does not mean the concept isn't sound. The Reds are never going to be able to compete for established top starting pitching on the market, so they have to develop within. By all indications, Bailey is the best pitching prospect this team has had in 20 years. The best part about it is he will be cheap for several years and he can't go anywhere unless he is traded. I just do not think there is any possible way he could bring enough in return to trade away because IMO it would take a lot.

puca
11-03-2006, 03:41 PM
Ask yourself......is Bailey guaranteed to become the next Roy Oswalt?

If your answer is yes, your ability to forsee the future is far better than mine. :help:


The other side to the argument is whether Roy Oswalt is guaranteed to still be an elite pitcher 2 years from now. He could blow out his arm the next time he takes the mound and be done. I'll gladly admit that the chances that Roy Oswalt is still an elite pitcher 2 years from now is much higher than the chances that Bailey ever becomes one, however the cost in terms of salary is also much higher.

For grins I looked back at some of the pitching leaders charts for 2001 to see who were the rising young starters at that time. There was no particular reason I picked 2001, and I admit this is not a very scientific study. But with that discliaimer are the names I found on the piching leader boards for ERA, SO/IP and H/IP that were under the age of 28:

Joe Mays, Freddy Garcia, Matt Morris, Kerry Wood, Chan Ho Park, Mark Buerle, CC Sabathia, Randy Wolfe, Javier Vazquez

Point is that although Homer Bailey is a big risk, but so is any player - even young pitchers that have already had success in the major leagues.

RedEye
11-03-2006, 08:01 PM
To trade Bailey now would be absolutely nuts. I agree with previous posters that unless we can get an established #1, there is no way at all we even consider trading him. Given the small market state of our budget, I'm not even sure I'd trade him for a pitcher who is 'established' beyond a couple of years at most. Trading for someone like Carpenter would not pay dividends for very long (isn't he like 32?). The only type of established young pitcher you trade him for is an established YOUNG #1 or top #2 (Brandon Webb, Jeremy Bonderman, Johan Santana, maybe Rich Harden). That's the only way you combine money and talent in your strategy.

fearofpopvol1
11-03-2006, 11:23 PM
My big fear about Bailey is his ability to develop those important 2nd and 3rd pitches. Of course he is capable. However, relying on that ridiculous fastball is just not enough. I think he should spend an entire season at AAA developing those extra pitches because otherwise, he's not going to be nearly as valuable as people think he will be. All #1 starters (regardless if their fastball is one of their best pitches) have an amazing 2nd (and in some cases 3rd) pitch.

TeamBoone
11-04-2006, 11:59 AM
My two cents, for what it's worth.

The Reds are starving for good pitching. Why would they trade their most promosing prospect to come along in years and years and years when, if he pans out, will be very cheap for a long time?

Do you really think a prospect, even a very promising one, will get the Reds what they need? Instead, it's more likely that HB would become the ace of another team and the player(s) received in the trade by the Reds will be long gone.

Big Daddy P
11-04-2006, 08:31 PM
What an absurd thread. He will not be traded. This is a waste of our time.

Let's trade this thread for a worthwhile one.

Pitching wins championships. If we've got anyone remotely a major prospect, we need to hold on to him like grim death!

Nuff said.

Johnny Footstool
11-05-2006, 02:55 AM
What an absurd thread. He will not be traded. This is a waste of our time.

Let's trade this thread for a worthwhile one.

Pitching wins championships. If we've got anyone remotely a major prospect, we need to hold on to him like grim death!

Nuff said.

If it's such a waste of time, why did you bother reading it and posting?

Redsfan08
11-05-2006, 03:01 AM
How about to the Mets for Victor Zambrano:eek:

:laugh: Damn thats sucks for the Mets they probably would of made it to the world series if They had Kazmir

blumj
11-05-2006, 11:14 AM
:laugh: Damn thats sucks for the Mets they probably would of made it to the world series if They had Kazmir
Nope. He was injured, too.

ochre
11-05-2006, 11:24 AM
Would you have traded Wade Miller just before he went to AAA?
Nope, but you can bet I'd have protected Santana on the 40 man over a 21 year old single A firstbaseman.

Seeing that this discussion seems to revolve around the 'Strohs pitching development philosophies... :)

ochre
11-05-2006, 11:27 AM
I think that the moves the Reds have made over the course of the past season have made it more unlikely that they will be realistically competitive until after Bailey is ready anyway. For me, that means the price for him just went up considerably. As others have said, nobody's untouchable, but I don't think the Reds will even have it all together by '08 now. Of course they could go out and make a splash in free agency, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of real difference makers that would make sense for this team.

puca
11-05-2006, 01:46 PM
I think that the moves the Reds have made over the course of the past season have made it more unlikely that they will be realistically competitive until after Bailey is ready anyway. For me, that means the price for him just went up considerably. As others have said, nobody's untouchable, but I don't think the Reds will even have it all together by '08 now. Of course they could go out and make a splash in free agency, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of real difference makers that would make sense for this team.

That is exactly how I stand. If the Reds were positioned differently I would have no problem trading Homer, but this team has too many holes and not enough depth to make me think the Reds can win in the near term.

George Foster
11-05-2006, 11:40 PM
I would trade Homer for Brandon Webb straight up....."a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush" Webb is a proven #1 and would thrive in GAB. Homer is still a prospect.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
11-05-2006, 11:56 PM
With Homer Bailey becoming one of the top minor league prospects in all of the minor leagues, many people are excited about the future with this kid. I think the future looks bright with this kid but the Reds have had similar top pitching prospects such as Gruler and Howington who have went down the drain. So with the Reds past record is it time to get something of value for Homer Bailey while the Reds can get something of value for him? Or do you say the Reds should let him still develop and hopefully succeed in a Reds uniform?


"That was as an authentic display of genuine frontier gibberish as I have heard in a long time. ...

harangatang
11-06-2006, 12:21 AM
"That was as an authentic display of genuine frontier gibberish as I have heard in a long time. ...Yep, it sure was, thinking of how to improve a team while a player has value is gibberish. I wonder if the Dodgers are kicking themselves for turning down the Edwin Jackson for Adam Dunn trade a couple of years back? The problem is the Reds don't know how to develop starting pitching, plain and simple. Maybe the Reds are unlucky but the last 2 "successful" starting pitchers to be fully developed in Tom Browning and Brett Tomko were both below league average pitchers. That time span stretches 20 years, that's a long time, a real long time.

jimbo
11-06-2006, 04:15 PM
The problem is the Reds don't know how to develop starting pitching, plain and simple. Maybe the Reds are unlucky but the last 2 "successful" starting pitchers to be fully developed in Tom Browning and Brett Tomko were both below league average pitchers. That time span stretches 20 years, that's a long time, a real long time.

So that means they should give up on that concept? Yes, you are correct in that they have not been successful developing pitching and that is why they have not any consistant success on the field. But, concentrating on developing a strong minor league system with emphasis on pitching still remains the key factor for this organization to maintain any kind of consistant success. With the payroll they maintain, they will never be able to maintain consistancy by going after established pitching that demand long-term high-dollar contracts. Establishing pitching in their minor league systems allows them to maintain some level of control in their salaries for a longer period of time.

Tigs
11-06-2006, 09:32 PM
I would only trade Homer for a proven difference maker. Possible examples that have surrounded by trade rumors are Vernon Wells, Carl Crawford, and Dontrelle Willis. I would try not to trade Bailey to a division rival.

harangatang
11-06-2006, 10:11 PM
So that means they should give up on that concept? Yes, you are correct in that they have not been successful developing pitching and that is why they have not any consistant success on the field. But, concentrating on developing a strong minor league system with emphasis on pitching still remains the key factor for this organization to maintain any kind of consistant success. With the payroll they maintain, they will never be able to maintain consistancy by going after established pitching that demand long-term high-dollar contracts. Establishing pitching in their minor league systems allows them to maintain some level of control in their salaries for a longer period of time.Truthfully I can't tell you what the Reds should do as their concept of pitching, but I can tell you something needs to change. I totally agree the Reds need to develop their own pitching but I am concerned that this may not be a reality for whatever reason. My concern is if the Reds destroy Homer Bailey, we have will have nothing to show for it. The fact of the matter is Homer Bailey could be a huge trading chip in acquiring a front line pitcher or player in a trade. In retrospect with Gruler and Howington, imagine if the Reds would have used them as trading chips at their peak value. I honestly believe the problem with the Reds even more than minor league system is inability to trade players when they have reached their peak. Truthfully I would love to see Homer Bailey succeed in a Reds uniform for years to come but I have doubts whether that will happen or not.

TeamBoone
11-07-2006, 01:47 AM
Why can't the Reds obtain some information on pitchers acquired from other teams as to how THOSE teams develop their pitchers?

I'd think Kent M would have had a lot of information to share regarding how Atlanta does it... and they seem to be one of the best (if not the best) at pitcher development.

If the Reds don't know how to do it, they must realize that after all these years. Thus, why don't they find out how to do it!!!!! In fact, I'd think it would be very high on their priority list.

harangatang
11-07-2006, 01:58 AM
Why can't the Reds obtain some information on pitchers acquired from other teams as to how THOSE teams develop their pitchers?

I'd think Kent M would have had a lot of information to share regarding how Atlanta does it... and they seem to be one of the best (if not the best) at pitcher development.

If the Reds don't know how to do it, they must realize that after all these years. Thus, why don't they find out how to do it!!!!! In fact, I'd think it would be very high on their priority list.Yeah that's a great point. I've always wondered why the Reds never hired someone from an organization like Atlanta or Oakland to work with our pitchers. It's really sad when the Reds have a great prospect like Homer and you have to wonder if he'll make it. If he was in a minor league system like Atlanta there's not 100% success rate, but I feel like he would definitely have alot better chance than with the Reds.

Ron Madden
11-07-2006, 02:59 AM
1. Good organizations hire Good GMs and Good Scouts.

2. Good GMs and Good Scouts sign Good Players.

3. Good GMs hire Good Managers and Good Coaches at Every Level to help develope that youg talent. (Just my humbel opinion)