PDA

View Full Version : Who Is RedsZones's #8 Prospect?



chicoruiz
01-06-2007, 04:37 PM
1. Homer Bailey
2. Jay Bruce
3. Joey Votto
4. Johnny Cueto
5. Travis Wood
6. Drew Stubbs
7. Chris Valaika

dougdirt
01-06-2007, 05:44 PM
I went with Milton Loo, lots of upside with him....took him over Lecure, but barely.

Shaknb8k
01-06-2007, 07:21 PM
I went with Lecure.... Dont know if i consider Hamilton a prospect so i probably wont vote for him at all. But i cant wait to see #9 and #10 prospects.....it should be very interesting.

We have an awsome 1-3 prospects but I dont think 4-7 are as terrible as people are saying. I think our problem is depth after the top 10.

Kc61
01-06-2007, 07:56 PM
I went with Hamilton. Impossible to evaluate whether he has or can overcome personal issues. But at this point, I couldn't find another prospect about whom I feel comfortable as a top ten guy.

Loo has absolutely no track record in pro ball so I have a little problem going for him just yet.

Cyclone792
01-06-2007, 08:10 PM
I voted for LeCure, but the vast range of prospects I could vote for at this point is growing wide as I took a hard look at Milton Loo and David Shafer. As of right now, I'll most likely round out my top 10 with both Loo and Shafer.

Betterread
01-06-2007, 08:26 PM
I voted for Tyler Pelland - he has a major league arm that can hit the mid-90s. He showed promise as a starter this year, but didn't totally convince me. But I do believe this year will be the one where the Reds decide if his development is as a reliever or as a starter. I like Lecure for the top 10, because of his polish, but he has hasn't hit AA yet. He is a good competitor, and he approaches pitching with a plan but his arm is average, not special, and his stuff was average at high A - not cause for optimism.

Will M
01-06-2007, 10:37 PM
I went with Lecure.... Dont know if i consider Hamilton a prospect so i probably wont vote for him at all. But i cant wait to see #9 and #10 prospects.....it should be very interesting.

We have an awsome 1-3 prospects but I dont think 4-7 are as terrible as people are saying. I think our problem is depth after the top 10.

Look at this scenario:

Each year the Reds add a pitcher to the major league club.
This pitcher is the #5 starter or middle relief.
He develops into a #3 or better starter or a set up guy/closer.

Each year the Reds start one rookie who hits 7th.
He develops into an every day major league player who then moves up in the batting order.

Once every 3 years one of these players develops into a guy who makes multiple all star teams in his career.

This would be an AWESOME minor league system and yet produce only 2 players a year.

I think having a handful of quality minor league players beats an army of generic 'prospects'.

camisadelgolf
01-06-2007, 10:39 PM
I think LeCure's ceiling is as a fourth starter. For Hamilton, I think having only 361 at-bats since the beginning of 2001 will be too much to overcome. I don't think Pelland will ever put it together. I think Milton Loo has the total package.

Gallen5862
01-06-2007, 11:12 PM
I voted for Lecure. I like it that there are several prospects that are all worthy.

lollipopcurve
01-07-2007, 12:17 AM
Pelland -- good arm, lefthanded, survived as a starter at 22/23 in AA. Should be able to help out of the pen at least.

RedsManRick
01-07-2007, 12:26 AM
Going Shafer again. Not the highest ceiling, but the rest of the guys are just too far off to project above a guy who was dominant in AA.

mth123
01-07-2007, 12:38 AM
Going Shafer again. Not the highest ceiling, but the rest of the guys are just too far off to project above a guy who was dominant in AA.

I went Lecure because he is a starter but Shafer and Coutlangus will be my next two choices for the same reasons as yours. I also think the decent Middle Relievers have more chance to contribute in a key role than a position player who may end up as nothing more than a utility guy.

Superdude
01-07-2007, 01:42 AM
Lecure once again. I'm not a big Loo fan. He's got speed and great contact ability, but it sounds like he's got "Javon Moran" disease. Almost all of his OBP comes from hits and his power isn't all that great. You have to hit like crap to be an effective offensive player with a style like that. If he's able to bat .320 per year, great, but it's tough to call that when he's hardly had any professional experience.

Danny Serafini
01-07-2007, 02:12 AM
I've been taking Hamilton with the past couple of picks. He may wind up amounting to absolutely nothing, but his ceiling to me is higher than the rest of the list so I'll go with him. If I was taking a regular minor leaguer I'd go with LeCure right now.

NC Reds
01-07-2007, 09:07 PM
I voted for Janish. He's getting better on offense and his defense is exceptional. I wish he were a little younger of course.

I think Loo will make a big jump in 2007. I wouldn't read too much into last year.

TRF
01-07-2007, 09:10 PM
Though I voted for LeCure last round, I am going with Calvin Medlock this round. All he has ever done AT EVERY LEVEL is produce.

Dude gets no love. Not even in his own organization.

dougdirt
01-07-2007, 10:56 PM
For the next poll, maybe we should leave off anyone who didnt recieve at least 5 votes, and just add "other, please specify" rather than listing 15 guys?

DoogMinAmo
01-08-2007, 12:42 AM
For the next poll, maybe we should leave off anyone who didnt recieve at least 5 votes, and just add "other, please specify" rather than listing 15 guys?

At some point you would have to introduce new options no matter what. While it is a bit much to glance through, when we get a few spots further down I will appreciate the choices. Because frankly, I have no dang clue who my #11 is going to be.

dougdirt
01-08-2007, 12:59 AM
This could be true....but right now, I think there are about 10 too many choices.

chicoruiz
01-08-2007, 09:01 AM
The trouble I have cutting down on choices is that we've reached a point where they're all so darned bunched together. I can't, for example, single out one of the AA pitchers to eliminate.

Plus we're reaching the stage where who you vote for depends a lot on how you define the word "prospect". Do you mean someone who has the best chance of playing in the bigs? Well, there's Burton, Dumatrait, Salmon and Hopper all standing on the brink. Do you fancy guys with high ceilings? Hamilton and Obispo are kind of like buying a powerball ticket: high risk, high reward. Some people value pitchers, others are TINSTAPP guys. If it's a minor annoyance to read through the list, well heck, it's a minor annoyance to type it, too, but I'd rather do that than have somebody say, "hey, I wanted to vote for Joe Blow and he's not on the ballot".

camisadelgolf
01-08-2007, 11:04 AM
Personally, I like having the options. Thank you, chico ruiz. This is a really cool thread. Also, if you think only a few names are needed, then you probably already have a good idea of whom will receive your vote, so it shouldn't take very long to find who you want.

dougdirt
01-08-2007, 12:46 PM
The trouble I have cutting down on choices is that we've reached a point where they're all so darned bunched together. I can't, for example, single out one of the AA pitchers to eliminate.

Plus we're reaching the stage where who you vote for depends a lot on how you define the word "prospect". Do you mean someone who has the best chance of playing in the bigs? Well, there's Burton, Dumatrait, Salmon and Hopper all standing on the brink. Do you fancy guys with high ceilings? Hamilton and Obispo are kind of like buying a powerball ticket: high risk, high reward. Some people value pitchers, others are TINSTAPP guys. If it's a minor annoyance to read through the list, well heck, it's a minor annoyance to type it, too, but I'd rather do that than have somebody say, "hey, I wanted to vote for Joe Blow and he's not on the ballot".

Well they cant be bunched that much together, 16 guys didnt get a single vote of the 80 votes cast. There is always the option for "other; please specify" and then that personcan go on the next ballot....but when 16 guys dont have votes, I think its a little much.

Betterread
01-08-2007, 11:10 PM
This is merely a suggestion, to round out the top 10 since I don't see the Reds as having this surplus of guys that should be top 10 prospects. About 13-15 guys are worthy of consideration - that's it. While guys like Shafer, Medlock, Coutlangus and Lutz might make the majors, they will do so as middle relievers, nothing more. That category of prospect is typically not ranked as a top 10 prospect, because they are common, not unique. All organizations have a handful of guys who are potential major league middle relievers.
6 of the 30 names got 3 votes or more. Why not use those 6 for the next round for #9. 22 of the names received one vote or less (14 received 0 votes). Why not eliminate those names? If someone wants to write-in - make it possible to do so.

mth123
01-09-2007, 05:23 AM
This is merely a suggestion, to round out the top 10 since I don't see the Reds as having this surplus of guys that should be top 10 prospects. About 13-15 guys are worthy of consideration - that's it. While guys like Shafer, Medlock, Coutlangus and Lutz might make the majors, they will do so as middle relievers, nothing more. That category of prospect is typically not ranked as a top 10 prospect, because they are common, not unique. All organizations have a handful of guys who are potential major league middle relievers.
6 of the 30 names got 3 votes or more. Why not use those 6 for the next round for #9. 22 of the names received one vote or less (14 received 0 votes). Why not eliminate those names? If someone wants to write-in - make it possible to do so.

It depends on your perspective I suppose. I voted for Lecure here and if he wins, my next two votes will be for Shafer and Coutlangus (I actually have Lecure 6, Shafer 7 and Coutlangus 8 followed by Medlock at 9 and Stubbs at 10 in my personal rankings). They may end-up as middle relievers but that could be a pretty key spot. Much more important than a reserve OF or Utility IF which is where most of the position players at this point project to. Additionally, Shafer and Coutlangus are closer to the majors and have a much better chance of actually making it and contributing which makes them better prospects in my mind. Guys like Valaika, Loo and Ravin had great starts and I am hopeful that they develop, but its a long way from Billings to Cincy and the minors are littered with guys who did well in Rookie ball and never made it. Some vote for ceiling which would support your argument, I personally take probability of making an actual contribution into account and these middle relievers are much more likely to contribute to the major league team than even the best of those in Rookie Ball. Finally, we have all seen just how valuable middle relievers are in this season's (and last's) trade and free agent markets. If Shafer and Coutlangus come up and do a decent job, they may be worth a Kearns and Lopez in trade.

I say leave everyone on the ballot. I don't see what it hurts. You are doing a good job Chico.

Kc61
01-09-2007, 02:07 PM
I think Danny Dorn should stay on the ballot. The guy (along with Votto) probably had the best offensive numbers in the organization with a 1.000 plus OPS. I know it is only advanced Rookie level, and he may not be that highly touted, but just based on performance he was sensational.

I will vote for him for ninth or tenth.

M2
01-09-2007, 02:44 PM
I think Danny Dorn should stay on the ballot. The guy (along with Votto) probably had the best offensive numbers in the organization with a 1.000 plus OPS. I know it is only advanced Rookie level, and he may not be that highly touted, but just based on performance he was sensational.

I will vote for him for ninth or tenth.

I agree with keeping Dorn on the ballot. Though I generally stay away from guys who haven't done anything above the rookie leagues, I'd sooner pick Dorn than Hamilton, who's a novelty, not a prospect.

Patrick Bateman
01-09-2007, 03:12 PM
The last 2 rounds I went with Sean Watson who hasn't gotten much support.

I'm surprised that everyone voted very highly for Valaika and didn't for Watson. Like Valaika, he's the same age, and he tore up rookie ball. The main difference is that Watson got a quick promotion to Dayton and faltered badly (albeit a small sample size and based on his K:BB numbers, I don't think his ERA was a very good reflection of how he actually pitched).

I've got Watson pegged as a guy that should probably be on the fast track to the majors as a late inning reliever, with possible rotation upside down the line.

He was just our 2nd pick, has some good talent, and is a pitcher. To me he is right where Valaika is in terms of prospect ranking. He's a college guy so he has a pretty decent chance of making the big leagues. He's one of the few prospects that the Reds have that will likely reach the majors while also possessing some decent upside.

RedsManRick
01-09-2007, 03:18 PM
My basic rating philosophy is:

(Value of ceiling) x (likelihood to reach said ceiling) = Value as a prospect.

I don't actually put numbers in there, but that's the general calculation. For me, a guy not yet above A needs to have an incredible ceiling to be considered a top 10 prospect.

I'd pretty easily rank a dominant AA reliever who most likely WILL be in the show in some capacity over a SS in low A who dominated the league but projects as maybe major league regular. Yes, if they both make it, the SS is more valuable. But given the chance that the SS will make it versus the chance that the reliever will make it, I rank the reliever higher.

Of course, that still leaves tons of room for argument about where the ceilings actually are, the relative value of a given ceilings, attrition due to age and the injury nexus, attrition due to skill as the player is promoted, etc.

M2
01-09-2007, 03:41 PM
That's my take too RMR. For instance, Shafer was a quality closer in Billings in 2002-3. He also tore up Dayton in 2004, Sarasota in 2005 and Chattanooga in 2006. I'll be pleasantly surprised if, in three years time, Watson turns out to be as good as Shafer is today.

Kc61
01-09-2007, 03:57 PM
The last 2 rounds I went with Sean Watson who hasn't gotten much support.

I'm surprised that everyone voted very highly for Valaika and didn't for Watson. Like Valaika, he's the same age, and he tore up rookie ball. The main difference is that Watson got a quick promotion to Dayton and faltered badly (albeit a small sample size and based on his K:BB numbers, I don't think his ERA was a very good reflection of how he actually pitched).

He's one of the few prospects that the Reds have that will likely reach the majors while also possessing some decent upside.

Watson's 8.59 ERA in 14 innings at Dayton undoubtedly is hurting him in this voting. For all the 2006 draftees, with so little track record, 2006 numbers get a lot of emphasis in polls and rankings.

lollipopcurve
01-09-2007, 05:55 PM
Shafer was a quality closer in Billings in 2002-3. He also tore up Dayton in 2004, Sarasota in 2005 and Chattanooga in 2006. I'll be pleasantly surprised if, in three years time, Watson turns out to be as good as Shafer is today.

Shafer's an odd one, in my view. Is he a closer in the making? He seems to have been groomed as one. Yet, he doesn't have the dominating H/IP or K/9 -- he's got very good numbers, but not what I'd call dominant. Reports on his stuff put him at 90-91 with a slider, I think. Standard two-pitch repertoire of a reliever. What makes him a closer at age 24 in AA may be that he's got some movement on the fastball, and/or excellent command of the fastball, plus some nice bite or deception on the slider. Will that translate to the majors? I have my doubts, particularly given he seems to be a little fragile -- note that outside of the year they tried him as a starter for 70+ innings in A ball, he has never gotten much above 50 innings of work. If he doesn't have the pure stuff to close, does he have the bouncebackability and 2-inning durability you need out of a middle reliever? Personally, I like Medlock better -- he has a much stronger starter's pedigree, a better heater and a nice complementary pitch (plus, he's a bit younger).

TRF
01-09-2007, 06:42 PM
Personally, I like Medlock better -- he has a much stronger starter's pedigree, a better heater and a nice complementary pitch (plus, he's a bit younger).

Me too. I think he can be more than what the Reds have tried to turn him into. The conversion to the bullpen was unnecessary IMO as he was doing just fine as a starter.

BoydsOfSummer
01-09-2007, 06:43 PM
At some point we're gonna need this option: Guy the Reds haven't drafted yet.

Sad part is, he might make the top ten.

Betterread
01-09-2007, 07:47 PM
It depends on your perspective I suppose. I voted for Lecure here and if he wins, my next two votes will be for Shafer and Coutlangus (I actually have Lecure 6, Shafer 7 and Coutlangus 8 followed by Medlock at 9 and Stubbs at 10 in my personal rankings). They may end-up as middle relievers but that could be a pretty key spot. Much more important than a reserve OF or Utility IF which is where most of the position players at this point project to. Additionally, Shafer and Coutlangus are closer to the majors and have a much better chance of actually making it and contributing which makes them better prospects in my mind. Guys like Valaika, Loo and Ravin had great starts and I am hopeful that they develop, but its a long way from Billings to Cincy and the minors are littered with guys who did well in Rookie ball and never made it. Some vote for ceiling which would support your argument, I personally take probability of making an actual contribution into account and these middle relievers are much more likely to contribute to the major league team than even the best of those in Rookie Ball. Finally, we have all seen just how valuable middle relievers are in this season's (and last's) trade and free agent markets. If Shafer and Coutlangus come up and do a decent job, they may be worth a Kearns and Lopez in trade.

I say leave everyone on the ballot. I don't see what it hurts. You are doing a good job Chico.

A middle reliever projection is a low projection. A low projection affects a prospect's scouting grade (between 20-80). The assessment of skills (tools) also affects a scouting grade. The four main pitcher's skills that are ranked are: pitch quality, control, delivery and durability. A low scouting grade affects a propsect's organizational ranking.
I am attempting to use commonly used scouting processes to rank prospects. I think its more fun to try to estimate what Reds' prospects projections will be rather than merely identifying which players post good statistics at AA and AAA. That is the basis of how I am ranking players.

chicoruiz
01-09-2007, 08:08 PM
Topics for discussion:

1. Is Shafer regarded as a good prospect within the organization? Off the top of my head, I can't remember anyone in the Reds front office mentioning him much. And if he is undervalued by the organization, does that lessen him as a prospect? After all, if your front office isn't sold on you, you'll probably only get one chance at most to prove yourself; a few bad innings and you're buried forever and labeled a "suspect".

2. What do you guys think about Tonys Gutierrez? Granted, he's been a bit old for his leagues, but hey, a .398 career OBP should count for something in this organization. To me, his biggest problem is being stuck behind Votto; if I were him I'd have been taking fly balls all winter. I may add him next time.

3. #9 will be posted tomorrow. And after we get through the top ten, rather than continue the way we have been, I thought we could just each post a list of our personal 11-15, and once all the lists are in I can assign each player 5 points for being rated #11, 4 points for #12, etc., and fill out our consensus list that way. Thoughts?

Blue
01-09-2007, 08:47 PM
My vote is for Lecure.

I think I could go to 20.

9. Milton Loo
10. Josh Hamilton
11. Sean Watson
12. Justin Turner
13. Cody Strait
14. Jon Coutlangus
15. Chris Dickerson
16. Phil Dumatrait
17. Daryl Thompson
18. Josh Ravin
19. Derrik Lutz
20. Brad Salmon

or something like that. There really do get bunched up after 10.

Blue
01-09-2007, 08:48 PM
3. #9 will be posted tomorrow. And after we get through the top ten, rather than continue the way we have been, I thought we could just each post a list of our personal 11-15, and once all the lists are in I can assign each player 5 points for being rated #11, 4 points for #12, etc., and fill out our consensus list that way. Thoughts?

good idea

Ron Madden
01-10-2007, 05:25 AM
I'm not anything close to being an expert judge of talent.

Just sayin' keep an eye on Sam LeCure.

camisadelgolf
01-10-2007, 09:45 AM
Sam LeCure = Justin Germano, in my opinion. I hope I'm wrong, though.

lollipopcurve
01-10-2007, 10:23 AM
Sam LeCure = Justin Germano, in my opinion. I hope I'm wrong, though.

I've liked Lecure ever since they drafted him, but I see his best-case as back of the rotation. If he can post the same kind of numbers in AA that he did last year in the FSL, I'll be impressed and he'll move up my list. He's a prospect I really root for.

Superdude
01-10-2007, 12:23 PM
Lecure's K rate next year will tell you pretty much everything you need to know about his potential. His stuff is good enough though to where I think he'll make the adjustment okay.