PDA

View Full Version : Who Is RedsZone's #10 Prospect?



chicoruiz
01-13-2007, 04:58 PM
1. Homer Bailey
2. Jay Bruce
3. Joey Votto
4. Johnny Cueto
5. Travis Wood
6. Drew Stubbs
7. Chris Valaika
8. Sam LeCure
9. Milton Loo

This should be an interesting one.

dougdirt
01-13-2007, 05:20 PM
I went with Sean Watson. He can bring the heat, and throw 3 other pitches as well. Lots of upside in him.

cincyinco
01-13-2007, 05:21 PM
I've been gone a little while, but I must say I'm a bit surprised... miffed, if you will.. maybe even a little dissapointed at how this community sees the Reds top 10.

Maybe its just me.. but I just don't see how a guy like Valaika, a guy pegged as an uber utility guy - even with his debut - gets put ahead of Loo. Loo could be an above average player at a premium position. Valaika was a college bat feasting on rookie level pitching. He did exactly what he should have done, and until he does it at higher levels, call me cautiously optimistic.

I am not trying to rag on the forum community here, but its curious to me what posters on here value in terms of grading/judging prospects. It seems to me overall ceiling isn't as big of a factor as it should be IMO - perhaps this community leans more towards performance and results - rather than projection. If thats the case, thats okay - but I'd seriously urge people trying to learn more about the prospect world to reconsider how they evaluate a prospect. I am sorry, but it just baffles me that a guy that most consider to be a utility infielder at best, gets a notch over a guy like Loo, who provides a potential big bat, at a premium position. Someone enlighten me please!

Just my humble opinion, and i'm not targeting anyone specifically - So no one should take this as an attack. I'm just trying to spark some discussion really, understand where people are coming from, why they voted they way they did, etc.

cincyinco
01-13-2007, 05:22 PM
I went with Sean Watson. He can bring the heat, and throw 3 other pitches as well. Lots of upside in him.

I agree.. I was tempted to put Obispo in just off hype alone, but I like Watson's upside, his pitching repetiore(sp?), and his ability to move quickly through the system.

I thought about Shafer too, and I like him.. but between Watson and Shafer, I think Watson clearly has the higher upside.

dougdirt
01-13-2007, 05:29 PM
I've been gone a little while, but I must say I'm a bit surprised... miffed, if you will.. maybe even a little dissapointed at how this community sees the Reds top 10.

Maybe its just me.. but I just don't see how a guy like Valaika, a guy pegged as an uber utility guy - even with his debut - gets put ahead of Loo. Loo could be an above average player at a premium position. Valaika was a college bat feasting on rookie level pitching. He did exactly what he should have done, and until he does it at higher levels, call me cautiously optimistic.

I am not trying to rag on the forum community here, but its curious to me what posters on here value in terms of grading/judging prospects. It seems to me overall ceiling isn't as big of a factor as it should be IMO - perhaps this community leans more towards performance and results - rather than projection. If thats the case, thats okay - but I'd seriously urge people trying to learn more about the prospect world to reconsider how they evaluate a prospect. I am sorry, but it just baffles me that a guy that most consider to be a utility infielder at best, gets a notch over a guy like Loo, who provides a potential big bat, at a premium position. Someone enlighten me please!

Just my humble opinion, and i'm not targeting anyone specifically - So no one should take this as an attack. I'm just trying to spark some discussion really, understand where people are coming from, why they voted they way they did, etc.

Personally I was really close with Loo and Valaika, but went with Valaika over Loo because he has more pop in his bat. I am not so sure Valaika is viewed as a utility guy. He has played at a big college, played for Team USA and tore through rookie ball. Sure he should do good in rookie ball, but I liked what I saw in his stats and the few video peices I was able to see of him. He has really good bat speed.

As for how I look at prospects, I would say its about 60% upside, 10% make up, 20% chance of reaching their upside and 10% where they currently are in the system.
With that said, Josh Ravin is my next pick after Watson goes up. I think with his stuff, his upside would put him well ahead of almost anyone else left.

Cyclone792
01-13-2007, 05:31 PM
I went with Shafer in the last poll, and I'm going with Shafer again in this one.

Gallen5862
01-13-2007, 05:37 PM
I will vote Watson this time. His upside is pretty good plus his command of several pitches.

Superdude
01-13-2007, 05:38 PM
I am sorry, but it just baffles me that a guy that most consider to be a utility infielder at best, gets a notch over a guy like Loo, who provides a potential big bat, at a premium position.

I'm not as high on Loo because most of his projection comes from speed and batting average. The speed may always be there, but the ability to hit for average at the pro level is tough to project from from someone who's hardly played any pro ball. I'll give decent ratings to unproven guys who have tons of power or amazing stuff, but when you're putting all your chips into lacing the ball around the field, I'd rather see him prove it first.

With that in mind, I'm gonna go with Janish again. I thought about Watson, but his college stats were so inconsistent, I'd rather see what he does next year before I get excited over his stuff.

cincyinco
01-13-2007, 06:20 PM
You guys really think Valakia has more pop in his bat than Loo? I still think Loo has a lot of projection, and room to grow.

I like Valaika too guys, but most everything I read on the guy says he wont stick at SS, which in my mind, seriously decreases his value. I don't know that he'd hit enough for 3rd base, but he would make a nice 2b prospect. In any case, Loo seems like a pretty sure bet to be a guy who man's the hot corner, with above average offensive potential, and at the very least average defense.

Valaika isn't super big - 6'0 and 195.. about my size. He def. has a good track record with team USA. I defenitely like his makeup, as he came back and worked seriosly hard to get in shape after a bad injury to the knee. He has quick hands, but IMO, just average power. His hands are good on D and Offense, but he lacks range, which IMO limits his value. If he can't stick at SS, then his value decreases considerably in my eyes. He's barely an average runner. And again, most things I read about him point to being a utility infielder - even MLB.com's draft day scouting report states "utility infielder". I personally think he can be better than that, but...

When you look at Milton Loo, on the other hand - although he's not much bigger, he seemingly offers more projection. He is a 5 tool talent, thats for sure.. I think he has a lot more raw or untapped power than he's shown thus far, and I think at the very min. his power will be on par with Valaika. Hitting is def. his best tool, but he's a great athlete, and I think he could play SS if the Reds wanted him too. He's got good range, above average arm, and solid actions. He seems like a team leader to me too, which is a plus for his makeup in my eyes. He's also a plus runner, as was mentioned.

I dont know, he just seems to have more of the total package to me.

In regards to how I evaluate prospects - I focus a lot on projectability, ceiling, tools, etc. Actual performance is secondary IMO, when talking about prospects. They need to perform eventually, but I wont sour on a guy simply becuase he had a rough debut(cough.. stubbs... cough) or a year spent learning/growing(see homer bailey in 2005 when everyone wrote him off.... man i can remember doug and I getting into some intense discussions defending him as a prospect around here..).

I also look at makeup of a prospect, as I think this is a highly undervalued and underrated - or overlooked - "tool" of a prospect. I tend to think less of prospects like Delmon Young or Elijah Dukes due to their makeup issues, and I think a guys work ethic and desire is a serious attribute that needs to be weighed when evaluating a prospect. This is one factor I like a lot about Valaika.

I think Valaika deserves to be in the top 10 of this list.. I just dont agree that he should be before Loo. He didn't do anything spectacular IMO, just what he should have done as a college player facing rookie level pitching. If he does it at High A, my hopes will raise. If he does it at AA, then I'll truely be impressed. Until then, I temper my enthusiasm for him, and don't put a lot of weight in his stats, as nice as they are. Anyone remember how big the hype was surrounding Adam Rosales around here? I fear Valakia could be getting the same type of hype. Rosales simply did what he was supposed to do when he was "the next big thing" - some on here rated him above homer bailey on their charts...

I dunno.. its interesting discussion, and thanks for the insight on how you guys judge the talent.. I appreciate it, brings a new perspective to how I look at things.

camisadelgolf
01-13-2007, 06:57 PM
I picked Watson. Granted, I think he's deserving, but the bigger issue with me was that I didn't want to see Hamilton as a "top 10" prospect.

DoogMinAmo
01-13-2007, 08:00 PM
Went with Medlock. Plus stuff, performed at every level, not his fault he got moved to the bullpen. Shafer is next.

lollipopcurve
01-13-2007, 09:27 PM
Loo has a few dozen ABs in the GCL, playing against younger competition. His elbow has been problematic for over a year -- he may have played a game or two in the field. Otherwise, he DHd. Valaika was a 3rd round pick who missed a lot of time 2 years ago because of a serious knee injury, so, like Loo, he comes with about 2 years of post high school experience -- and he goes out and wins the Pioneed League MYP playing SS. Just because a guy is pegged by Baseball America uts as a utility guy doesn't mean he can't end up a starter. Someone, I don't remember who, posted some stats showing line drive % for several of the Billings hitters -- Valaika's LD% was so much higher than others that I was shocked, and it went a long way to solidyifying for me his staus as a bona fide prospect. I like that they signed Loo, but he's going to have to show something playing against his age group, including sustained health, before I put him in Valaika's neighborhood.

M2
01-13-2007, 09:43 PM
I went with Shafer in the last poll, and I'm going with Shafer again in this one.

Same here. I don't get the Watson picks. He'll spend the next three years trying to catch up to where Shafer is today.

And, once again, Hamilton is not a prospect.

I'm surprised Wirfin Obispo isn't more popular at this moment. Seems to me he's the top "upside" guy on the board.

Scrap Irony
01-13-2007, 10:33 PM
Valiaka's D, for what it's worth, graded out well above average at the SS position, if memory serves.

If he plays SS, he's a Top Ten player. If not, he's maybe Top 20.

cincyinco
01-13-2007, 10:47 PM
Loo has a few dozen ABs in the GCL, playing against younger competition. His elbow has been problematic for over a year -- he may have played a game or two in the field. Otherwise, he DHd. Valaika was a 3rd round pick who missed a lot of time 2 years ago because of a serious knee injury, so, like Loo, he comes with about 2 years of post high school experience -- and he goes out and wins the Pioneed League MYP playing SS. Just because a guy is pegged by Baseball America uts as a utility guy doesn't mean he can't end up a starter. Someone, I don't remember who, posted some stats showing line drive % for several of the Billings hitters -- Valaika's LD% was so much higher than others that I was shocked, and it went a long way to solidyifying for me his staus as a bona fide prospect. I like that they signed Loo, but he's going to have to show something playing against his age group, including sustained health, before I put him in Valaika's neighborhood.

We normally see eye to eye on things LPC, but I'm not sure how you can give a huge exception to Valaika.

And I dont base my opinion soley on baseball america.. nor do I believe that just becuase thats what he's pegged as, thats what he's destined to be - i.e.. a utility infielder. Scouts get it wrong all the time, often overestimate a players prospects(greg jeffries), and often underestimate a players prospects(albert pujols). But there seems to be a pretty general consensus that Valaika wont stick at SS.

And perhaps I'm just conservative when discussing Reds prospects, as I hate to let homerism get in the way of how i evaluate - so I often try to be more harsh on our own farm - but I still contend Valaika only did what he should have done against inferior competition.

Loo has only played at the JuCo level before, not near the competition Valaika had faced, and therefore I think its apples and oranges when comparing their ability to adjust to their level of play. Again, Valaika did what he should of done - which is good. I just want to see him do it again, before I am completely sold. Loo, on the other hand, while relegated to DH duties, stung the ball to the tune of .372/.413/.581 - even with elbow trouble. Thats pretty impressive to me, and I could argue that Loo perhaps hadn't faced that level of competition regularly before and did better than expected, where as Valaika had.

I don't know, I've made my point... Again, I appreciate everyone's insight, and different perspective - its nice to have some good prospect talk about Reds prospects. I respectfully disagree, but thats what makes the game of following the kids on up the ladder fun.

IslandRed
01-13-2007, 10:55 PM
cincyinco, I think a lot of it is, people have seen enough pre-draft scouting reports that turned out to be total rubbish that they're skeptical of rating anyone solely on the basis of those reports, as you must until there's some kind of performance record to go on. That's where Loo is right now. By this time next year, maybe we'll be saying all those things about Loo that you said, and I hope so. If we are, he'll be a lot higher on that list.

Scouting reports can be plenty wrong on major-college players too but at least there's some kind of performance record to evaluate. Valaika's scouting reports weren't unanimous, but his short-season performance was sufficiently impressive that people are thinking we might get the better end of those projections (2B with a good bat) as opposed to the lower end (fringe utility guy).

Patrick Bateman
01-14-2007, 02:44 AM
Same here. I don't get the Watson picks. He'll spend the next three years trying to catch up to where Shafer is today.


Watson also has a lot more upside than Shafer. That merits a great deal of consideration.

reds44
01-14-2007, 03:21 AM
Watson.

Blue
01-14-2007, 04:25 AM
I voted for Hamilton. I realize that there is a lot of sentiment against that, but given his ceiling, I think he's worthy. He started off very slowly, but put together a nice stretch prior to his knee injury. He's young enough that the potential is still there, and I'm glad we've got him.

I don't think Shafer's stuff is good enough to warrant a spot in the top 10. As far as pitchers go, I'd put Watson, Coutlangus, Medlock, and Brad Salmon ahead of him.

dmcgee77
01-14-2007, 08:02 AM
I voted for Dumatrait. He's a first round pick (2000 draft) that we got from the Red Sox. We traded Scott Williamson to get him. He's poised to make a charge for the Red's #5 starter role. His six year minor league ERA is an impressive 3.29. Granted, last year was an off year for him, but we can't afford to let first rounders gather mold and dust. He got my vote.

Betterread
01-14-2007, 12:05 PM
I voted for Josh Ravin. He's a big, strong kid with a mid90s fastball and secondary pitches with potential. I hope they continue to develop him as a starting pitcher, and we can see how he adjusts to low A in 2007. He showed great promise by flashing dominating stuff in 2006.

Kc61
01-14-2007, 12:21 PM
This top ten now will likely have 4 members drafted last year who played primarily in rookie ball. Stubbs, Valaika, Loo, Watson.

This doesn't reflect that well on the more experienced members of the organization. It also embraces Krivsky's draft, which wasn't that well received at the time.

Aside from Valaika, who really had an extraordinary year in advanced rookie ball and whose history reflects many attributes I like (came back from injury, always has hit against good competition), I wonder whether these guys really deserve this much support.

For me, the Reds' placement of Loo at the GCL level indicates he has a long way to go. Stubbs didn't hit at Billings. Watson, a college pitcher, could not handle low A ball. I understand that a half season, breaking into pro ball, doesn't tell us much but I am surprised by the level of support for these guys.

While this is a fun exercise, it raises a lot of questions, particularly about the near-term.

Other than Bailey, do the Reds have any starting pitchers who can help in 2007 or even 2008? Are Cueto and Wood good enough to be effective in the major league in the next couple of years? Are the Reds putting too much emphasis on one arm, that of Mr. Bailey, and are any of their other starting prospects real.

The one area where the Reds have some high-level depth is in the bullpen at the AA and AAA levels. Shafer, Coutlangus, Medlock, Salmon, Guevera, perhaps others. How good are these guys? Are any of them genuine candidates to pitch late in games?

The apparent top ten list has one high-level position player, Votto. With Griffey and Dunn questionable beyond the next year or two (contract, age, etc.), can the Reds' system provide replacements in the near-term? Can Bruce progress quickly enough? Do the Reds see Denorfia as a full time player? As a top college player, we would have hoped for Stubbs to be at about High A or even possibly AA some time next year. Is that possible?

Again, this has been a fun exercise.

Betterread
01-14-2007, 12:37 PM
You guys really think Valakia has more pop in his bat than Loo? I still think Loo has a lot of projection, and room to grow.

I like Valaika too guys, but most everything I read on the guy says he wont stick at SS, which in my mind, seriously decreases his value. I don't know that he'd hit enough for 3rd base, but he would make a nice 2b prospect. In any case, Loo seems like a pretty sure bet to be a guy who man's the hot corner, with above average offensive potential, and at the very least average defense.

Valaika isn't super big - 6'0 and 195.. about my size. He def. has a good track record with team USA. I defenitely like his makeup, as he came back and worked seriosly hard to get in shape after a bad injury to the knee. He has quick hands, but IMO, just average power. His hands are good on D and Offense, but he lacks range, which IMO limits his value. If he can't stick at SS, then his value decreases considerably in my eyes. He's barely an average runner. And again, most things I read about him point to being a utility infielder - even MLB.com's draft day scouting report states "utility infielder". I personally think he can be better than that, but...

When you look at Milton Loo, on the other hand - although he's not much bigger, he seemingly offers more projection. He is a 5 tool talent, thats for sure.. I think he has a lot more raw or untapped power than he's shown thus far, and I think at the very min. his power will be on par with Valaika. Hitting is def. his best tool, but he's a great athlete, and I think he could play SS if the Reds wanted him too. He's got good range, above average arm, and solid actions. He seems like a team leader to me too, which is a plus for his makeup in my eyes. He's also a plus runner, as was mentioned.

I dont know, he just seems to have more of the total package to me.

In regards to how I evaluate prospects - I focus a lot on projectability, ceiling, tools, etc. Actual performance is secondary IMO, when talking about prospects. They need to perform eventually, but I wont sour on a guy simply becuase he had a rough debut(cough.. stubbs... cough) or a year spent learning/growing(see homer bailey in 2005 when everyone wrote him off.... man i can remember doug and I getting into some intense discussions defending him as a prospect around here..).

I also look at makeup of a prospect, as I think this is a highly undervalued and underrated - or overlooked - "tool" of a prospect. I tend to think less of prospects like Delmon Young or Elijah Dukes due to their makeup issues, and I think a guys work ethic and desire is a serious attribute that needs to be weighed when evaluating a prospect. This is one factor I like a lot about Valaika.

I think Valaika deserves to be in the top 10 of this list.. I just dont agree that he should be before Loo. He didn't do anything spectacular IMO, just what he should have done as a college player facing rookie level pitching. If he does it at High A, my hopes will raise. If he does it at AA, then I'll truely be impressed. Until then, I temper my enthusiasm for him, and don't put a lot of weight in his stats, as nice as they are. Anyone remember how big the hype was surrounding Adam Rosales around here? I fear Valakia could be getting the same type of hype. Rosales simply did what he was supposed to do when he was "the next big thing" - some on here rated him above homer bailey on their charts...

I dunno.. its interesting discussion, and thanks for the insight on how you guys judge the talent.. I appreciate it, brings a new perspective to how I look at things.

Your advocacy for Loo is good reading and you ask reasonable questions, so here is my perspective.
I like Loo and Valaika a little better than Stubbs, because they both have quick bats, center the ball really well and can flat out hit the ball consistently, and hit it hard to all fields. I like Valaika better, because he has played stronger competition in college and in Rookie ball, and proven himself against that competition. He also played SS for Billings, while Loo will probably move to 3B. This tells me the Reds see him staying at SS for the time being, which is merited by his defense, which is pretty good (though not as good as Janish - who is the best fielding SS in the minors, with Olmedo gone). It also means that the type of offensive expectation for Loo is different at 3B than SS. A 3b typically needs to hit for power and Loo is all projected power at this point in his development. He can hit, but my question is can he hit for power? The scouting projections (for what they are worth) also have Valaika hitting for more power than Loo.

dougdirt
01-14-2007, 12:47 PM
This top ten now will likely have 4 members drafted last year who played primarily in rookie ball. Stubbs, Valaika, Loo, Watson.

This doesn't reflect that well on the more experienced members of the organization. It also embraces Krivsky's draft, which wasn't that well received at the time.

I didnt like the first two picks from the draft at the time, as I would have gone other places with them, but beyond that I didnt have a problem with the draft. The guys performed about as well as you could hope for, and I honestly think we may have found a steal with Josh Ravin in the 5th round.


Aside from Valaika, who really had an extraordinary year in advanced rookie ball and whose history reflects many attributes I like (came back from injury, always has hit against good competition), I wonder whether these guys really deserve this much support.
Stubbs, Loo and Watson all have very good upsides. Stubbs and Valaika are both potential 5 tool talents. Stubbs needs to hit for a little more contact, but that is really the only rub on him right now. Loo needs to develop a little more power. Watson throw in the 92-95mph range, and also throws 3 other pitches beyond his fastball....all three have the upside that a top 10 guy should have, and especially after 200 at bats in rookie ball, that is something you really need to be looking at.


For me, the Reds' placement of Loo at the GCL level indicates he has a long way to go. Stubbs didn't hit at Billings. Watson, a college pitcher, could not handle low A ball. I understand that a half season, breaking into pro ball, doesn't tell us much but I am surprised by the level of support for these guys.

I think it had a more to do with his elbow problems he had than it had to do with anything else.


While this is a fun exercise, it raises a lot of questions, particularly about the near-term.

Other than Bailey, do the Reds have any starting pitchers who can help in 2007 or even 2008? Are Cueto and Wood good enough to be effective in the major league in the next couple of years? Are the Reds putting too much emphasis on one arm, that of Mr. Bailey, and are any of their other starting prospects real.

I dont think the Reds have any starters that can help in 2007 that arent named Homer Bailey. Although with that said Johnny Cueto could be ready some time in 2008. I figure he probably starts this season in AA, if not he would start in A+ again, and he performed quite well there already last year and be ready to advance soon. He could easily be in AAA by 2008 if things go by plan, which could mean he could help by 2008 if needed to. I think Travis Wood is good enough to help out eventually, but I think he is one we will wait for until at least 2009 or 2010.



The one area where the Reds have some high-level depth is in the bullpen at the AA and AAA levels. Shafer, Coutlangus, Medlock, Salmon, Guevera, perhaps others. How good are these guys? Are any of them genuine candidates to pitch late in games?
I am not sure any of them are candidates to be "closers", maybe Medlock because he has the best fastball...but they are probably all middle-set up men types.



The apparent top ten list has one high-level position player, Votto. With Griffey and Dunn questionable beyond the next year or two (contract, age, etc.), can the Reds' system provide replacements in the near-term? Can Bruce progress quickly enough? Do the Reds see Denorfia as a full time player? As a top college player, we would have hoped for Stubbs to be at about High A or even possibly AA some time next year. Is that possible?

Again, this has been a fun exercise.

With Griffey and Dunn leaving, I think we can rely on Denorfia to hold the fort down for now, but by the time the two have contracts up (2 years) Jay Bruce should probably be ready to take the job from someone in either CF or RF. I honestly wouldnt be surprised to see Stubbs begin the season in Sarasota. Krivsky talks about "every level" but he sure let Brandon Roberts jump from Billings to Sarasota and he didnt have the pedigree that Stubbs had, so I wouldnt be surprised to see several college draftees start in Sarasota....

Blue
01-14-2007, 02:55 PM
I hope they keep Loo and Valaika at middle infield positions, in case Brandon Phillips can't build on last season over the next couple years.

TRF
01-14-2007, 04:30 PM
Went with Medlock. Plus stuff, performed at every level, not his fault he got moved to the bullpen. Shafer is next.

ditto..

RedsManRick
01-14-2007, 10:35 PM
In regards to how I evaluate prospects - I focus a lot on projectability, ceiling, tools, etc. Actual performance is secondary IMO, when talking about prospects. They need to perform eventually, but I wont sour on a guy simply becuase he had a rough debut(cough.. stubbs... cough) or a year spent learning/growing(see homer bailey in 2005 when everyone wrote him off.... man i can remember doug and I getting into some intense discussions defending him as a prospect around here..).


Just curious Cincyco, but where is the line between projectable tools and performance. Do we have examples of good major leaguers who never performed well (notably) in the minors? I don't know the answer. For me though, a guy who is putting up notable numbers in a league equal to or above his age level is showing those skills.

A corralary, what skills project well through a player's development? I tend to think focus on thinks that represent something a guy has to do rather than something other player's can do which affect his performance. A guy could have a decent curve that he can't locate and so he strikes a bunch out but also walks a lot guys. I would think that as he moves up, the strikeouts would lesson and the walks would stay or increase. For hitters walks are great but you can't fake power or speed. I'm more worried about that contact rate than the walk rate against pitchers who might not have great control. Anyways, perhaps this is a completely different thread, but I'd love see a fresh conversation about how different people go about evaluating and rating prospects.

M2
01-14-2007, 11:55 PM
Watson also has a lot more upside than Shafer. That merits a great deal of consideration.

My take is it's phantom upside. I don't think there's anything special about Watson.

He's trying to do a job Shafer's already done for a few years. Shafer keeps people off the bases, doesn't give up power, doesn't allow many runs and makes hitters swing and miss. That impresses me.

DoogMinAmo
01-15-2007, 12:10 AM
My take is it's phantom upside. I don't think there's anything special about Watson.

He's trying to do a job Shafer's already done for a few years. Shafer keeps people off the bases, doesn't give up power, doesn't allow many runs and makes hitters swing and miss. That impresses me.

Out of curiosity, how long until the Reds can lose Shafer?

i.e. what is his rule 5/ six year minor league FA status?

HokieRed
01-15-2007, 10:55 AM
I voted Cody Strait again. Seems to me to be very much undervalued not only by the board but by John Sickels. Just did some unofficial stat calculations on the Florida State League: only three guys in that league had better than .450 percentage of their hits for extra bases. Strait is one of the three and only hundredths of a point from the top. The other two stole 2 and 9 bases respectively, Strait stole 50, tied for the league lead. One of these other two, Paul Larish of the Tigers, is a B- prospect for Sickels, #6 in the Tigers system. Yet Strait doesn't even get mentioned on Sickels list or in his additional category. And it's not a matter of age--Larish is seven months older than Strait. Another comparison is with Paul Janish, also seven months older than Strait, #11 for Sickels in our organization. Janish had 30% of his FSL hits for extra bases last year, Strait 45%. Janish is apparently a fine fielder but Strait was, I believe, the highest rated defender of any Reds minor leaguer.

RedsManRick
01-15-2007, 01:14 PM
I voted Cody Strait again. Seems to me to be very much undervalued not only by the board but by John Sickels. Just did some unofficial stat calculations on the Florida State League: only three guys in that league had better than .450 percentage of their hits for extra bases. Strait is one of the three and only hundredths of a point from the top. The other two stole 2 and 9 bases respectively, Strait stole 50, tied for the league lead. One of these other two, Paul Larish of the Tigers, is a B- prospect for Sickels, #6 in the Tigers system. Yet Strait doesn't even get mentioned on Sickels list or in his additional category. And it's not a matter of age--Larish is seven months older than Strait. Another comparison is with Paul Janish, also seven months older than Strait, #11 for Sickels in our organization. Janish had 30% of his FSL hits for extra bases last year, Strait 45%. Janish is apparently a fine fielder but Strait was, I believe, the highest rated defender of any Reds minor leaguer.

I agree Hokie. I did some reading on him as well. It sounds like contact rate is the concern -- but the FSL is notorious for depressing offensive production. If Strait can maintain his speed and power and hit .270+, he could shoot WAY up prospect boards in 2007. His numbers across the board remind me a lot of Corey Patterson. Given Strait's age, he's going to need to move quickly while developing a little more patience, but he should be fun to keep an eye on.

M2
01-15-2007, 05:33 PM
Just a little something to mull over as we try to determine the Reds' top 10. Here's what BA's John Sickels had to say about Zach Ward in a Twins chat:

"He's probably in the top 30 but was not a factor for the top 10 for me. He's probably going to be a reliever, with his delivery and his stuff and his mentality. Then if he's a reliever, is he better than Eduardo Morlan, or Pat Neshek, or Jose Mijares, or Tim Lahey, or Yohan Pino, or . . . it's tough to project relievers. Ward would have been top 10 in the Reds system, and he's not really--in my mind--close to top 10 for the Twins. That says something about the Twins' system, but more about the Reds, IMO."

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/prospects/features/262932.html

So we're not the only ones wrestling with the Reds' lack of depth.

IslandRed
01-15-2007, 10:12 PM
I remember that came up in the aftermath of the Lohse/Ward trade. Someone asked how we could trade a pitcher that was probably in our top ten prospects and the rebuttal was that losing the tenth-best prospect is no big deal if we only have five or six that are supposed to be good and he wasn't one of them.

camisadelgolf
01-21-2011, 04:52 PM
I was just looking back at some of the previous lists, and I laughed when I saw that we ranked Sean Watson ahead of AL MVP Josh Hamilton. Watson's likely one of the 10-12 candidates who will never play MLB.

medford
01-21-2011, 05:00 PM
I was just looking back at some of the previous lists, and I laughed when I saw that we ranked Sean Watson ahead of AL MVP Josh Hamilton. Watson's likely one of the 10-12 candidates who will never play MLB.

Not much talk about Hamilton either. Other than him jumping near the top, and I guess Janish jumping into the top 10 w/ Loo droppig out, the top 10 from 2007 would remain the same as today if asked to rank all these guys (though obviously in a different order). I guess we all forget just how much uncertaintity there was w/ Josh Hamilton when we got him from the cubs following the rule 5 draft.

camisadelgolf
01-21-2011, 05:28 PM
Good point, medford. Years from now, we may be talking about this year as one of the best groups of prospects ever. Imagine having a top-10 prospect list of this:
Joey Votto
Josh Hamilton
Jay Bruce
Johnny Cueto
Drew Stubbs
Homer Bailey
Travis Wood
Paul Janish
Daryl Thompson
Jared Burton

. . . because those are players the Reds had going into 2007.