PDA

View Full Version : Rotoworld Top 150 Prospects



edabbs44
03-05-2007, 07:56 AM
Homer - #4
Bruce - #8
Votto - #48
Stubbs - #111
Wood - #119

The DRays had 11 names...wow.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/features/column.aspx?sport=MLB&columnid=2&articleid=27859

dougdirt
03-05-2007, 08:23 AM
Cant believe that Cueto didnt make their list. He is definately a top 150 prospect, no doubts about it.

edabbs44
03-05-2007, 08:44 AM
The thing that really jumps out at me about these lists is the amount of higher draft picks / international players on here.

It seems like, with the advances of scouting, there are less hidden gems nowadays.

OnBaseMachine
03-05-2007, 06:45 PM
Johnny Cueto is a top 100 prospect in my book. Rotoworld leaving him out of their top 150 is a joke to me. Look at his stats and then consider how good his stuff is and then compare it to some of the names on that list. Not very good research on their part.

dougdirt
03-05-2007, 07:08 PM
Johnny Cueto is a top 100 prospect in my book. Rotoworld leaving him out of their top 150 is a joke to me. Look at his stats and then consider how good his stuff is and then compare it to some of the names on that list. Not very good research on their part.

Someone on another site I go to brought up a good point.... once he got to about 100, he pretty much used his previous list to fill in the last 50 guys. The one thing I like is the mini scouting reports he gives with the top 100, something most places dont do.

RedEye
03-05-2007, 07:11 PM
I'm amazed that Stubbs is making these lists. Has he done anything yet to show that he is legit? Is he getting ranked just because of his "Mike Cameron" defense?

dougdirt
03-05-2007, 07:19 PM
I'm amazed that Stubbs is making these lists. Has he done anything yet to show that he is legit? Is he getting ranked just because of his "Mike Cameron" defense?

In such a small sample size you need to rely on things that scouts say.
Stubbs has great power potential.
Stubbs has great speed.
Stubbs has very good plate discipline.
Stubbs plays great defense.

Stubbs does not make a lot of contact.

For right now, he has 1 weakness and 4 very strong points. He plays one of the most important defensive positions on the field, he doesnt need to hit .290/.380/.500 to be valuable. Last season 28 players had 400 at bats as a centerfielder. 18 of them had an OPS lower than .800. 10 of them had an OPS lower than .750. You dont have to hit very well to play centerfield in the major leagues as long as you play good defense. Drew Stubbs could hit .250 in the majors and be a very valuable player to the Reds.

edabbs44
03-05-2007, 09:52 PM
In such a small sample size you need to rely on things that scouts say.
Stubbs has great power potential.
Stubbs has great speed.
Stubbs has very good plate discipline.
Stubbs plays great defense.

Stubbs does not make a lot of contact.

For right now, he has 1 weakness and 4 very strong points. He plays one of the most important defensive positions on the field, he doesnt need to hit .290/.380/.500 to be valuable. Last season 28 players had 400 at bats as a centerfielder. 18 of them had an OPS lower than .800. 10 of them had an OPS lower than .750. You dont have to hit very well to play centerfield in the major leagues as long as you play good defense. Drew Stubbs could hit .250 in the majors and be a very valuable player to the Reds.

This is very true. The fear is that he doesn't hit .250.

RedEye
03-05-2007, 10:01 PM
In such a small sample size you need to rely on things that scouts say.
Stubbs has great power potential.
Stubbs has great speed.
Stubbs has very good plate discipline.
Stubbs plays great defense.

Stubbs does not make a lot of contact.

For right now, he has 1 weakness and 4 very strong points. He plays one of the most important defensive positions on the field, he doesnt need to hit .290/.380/.500 to be valuable. Last season 28 players had 400 at bats as a centerfielder. 18 of them had an OPS lower than .800. 10 of them had an OPS lower than .750. You dont have to hit very well to play centerfield in the major leagues as long as you play good defense. Drew Stubbs could hit .250 in the majors and be a very valuable player to the Reds.

I still wish we'd taken Tim Linecum... but thanks for the information, dougdirt. I hope he pans out as expected.

michst
03-07-2007, 03:31 PM
Knowing what we know about Hamilton now. Where do you think he would rank?

edabbs44
03-07-2007, 03:44 PM
Knowing what we know about Hamilton now. Where do you think he would rank?

Knowing that he had a great first week of ST? Doubt he would even be in the discussion.

M2
03-07-2007, 03:55 PM
In such a small sample size you need to rely on things that scouts say.
Stubbs has great power potential.
Stubbs has great speed.
Stubbs has very good plate discipline.
Stubbs plays great defense.

Stubbs does not make a lot of contact.

For right now, he has 1 weakness and 4 very strong points. He plays one of the most important defensive positions on the field, he doesnt need to hit .290/.380/.500 to be valuable. Last season 28 players had 400 at bats as a centerfielder. 18 of them had an OPS lower than .800. 10 of them had an OPS lower than .750. You dont have to hit very well to play centerfield in the major leagues as long as you play good defense. Drew Stubbs could hit .250 in the majors and be a very valuable player to the Reds.

Though if he's going to be a nouveau Aaron Rowand then he's not a top 100 prospect and he was a horribly wasted draft pick. Stubbs struggled with the bat in a hitter's league. College players, particularly supposed studs, should detonate that league. Stubbs' debut was Szymanskiesque.

Honestly, wouldn't your above description also apply to Chris Dickerson?

dougdirt
03-07-2007, 04:05 PM
Though if he's going to be a nouveau Aaron Rowand then he's not a top 100 prospect and he was a horribly wasted draft pick. Stubbs struggled with the bat in a hitter's league. College players, particularly supposed studs, should detonate that league. Stubbs' debut was Szymanskiesque.

Honestly, wouldn't your above description also apply to Chris Dickerson?

Dickerson doesnt have the same type of power Stubbs has shown. They do both have the same qualities I listed. I am not going to get into the Stubbs disappointment/bad pick arguement again, it shows up at about the same ratio as the Adam Dunn/strikeout topic does (per post per forum anyways).

M2
03-07-2007, 04:15 PM
Dickerson doesnt have the same type of power Stubbs has shown. They do both have the same qualities I listed. I am not going to get into the Stubbs disappointment/bad pick arguement again, it shows up at about the same ratio as the Adam Dunn/strikeout topic does (per post per forum anyways).

Stubbs certainly has more present power than Dickerson. Though Dickerson's an excellent case of how ineffective contact can rob a big, strong kid of power, a valuable cautionary tale if you will.

As for Stubbs, I'm just noting that a Rowandish future would be a disappointment. I assume we're all hoping for him to shake off whatever dogged him the Pioneer League last year. Though I think his debut performance gave cause for concern seeing that the flaw he demonstrated is the sort of thing that can completely undermine everything else a player does well.

lollipopcurve
03-07-2007, 04:28 PM
I'm just noting that a Rowandish future would be a disappointment

Matter of opinion. It was a weak draft, and getting a league-average CF with excellent defense is OK by me. Lots of top ten guys fail completely -- though it should be noted that at the top of the draft college hitters have higher success rates, so, for me, anything less than Rowandesque will mean they didn't evaluate or develop Stubbs properly.

Of course, if the criterion for a disappointment is that the player didn't end up outperforming every draftee taken after him -- as sometimes appears to be the case -- then he, like most draftees of all time, will be a disappointment.

M2
03-07-2007, 04:48 PM
It was a weak draft

I daresay that's a vastly premature conclusion. I'll guarantee you that a good number of players drafted after Stubbs have way better careers than Aaron Rowand.


Of course, if the criterion for a disappointment is that the player didn't end up outperforming every draftee taken after him -- as sometimes appears to be the case -- then he, like most draftees of all time, will be a disappointment.

Well, you'll have to discuss that criteria with someone who has it. For my part, I'd be real happy with a Mike Cameron career from Stubbs. Cameron's always good (with the exception of 1998). Rowand's been below average as often as he's been above it.

lollipopcurve
03-07-2007, 05:46 PM
I daresay that's a vastly premature conclusion. I'll guarantee you that a good number of players drafted after Stubbs have way better careers than Aaron Rowand.

True enough -- too soon to say if it was as weak as it was forecast to be. Still, the fact that a healthy handful of post slot 7 draftees will have a better career than Aaron Rowand has something to do with the fact that something on the order of 1500 players were drafted after Stubbs. That tells us little about the strength of the draft, and, in terms of evaluating Stubbs' career, I'm not sure what you're getting at.


For my part, I'd be real happy with a Mike Cameron career from Stubbs. Cameron's always good (with the exception of 1998). Rowand's been below average as often as he's been above it.

Sure, a Cameron career would be better. Like I said, I'll take league-average offense and excellent defense. Whether that's Cameron, Rowand or Denorfia comparable, I figure it's good for the Reds, no matter where the guy was picked.

M2
03-07-2007, 10:11 PM
Sure, a Cameron career would be better. Like I said, I'll take league-average offense and excellent defense. Whether that's Cameron, Rowand or Denorfia comparable, I figure it's good for the Reds, no matter where the guy was picked.

Ideally you don't get many top 10 picks and, when you do have one, you want the kid to round into a high quality player. Rowand/Cesar Geronimo types are role players. They're fine if you surround them with star quality, but I'd rather find them lower in the draft. I sincerely hope Stubbs turns out better.

Caveat Emperor
03-08-2007, 11:29 PM
Of course, if the criterion for a disappointment is that the player didn't end up outperforming every draftee taken after him -- as sometimes appears to be the case -- then he, like most draftees of all time, will be a disappointment.

He doesn't have to outperform all the other people drafted behind him, but I'd definately like to see something more out of a top-10 pick than what he's shown so far, and definately more than a below league-average offensive center fielder.

Weak draft or not, you've gotta make high picks count.

lollipopcurve
03-09-2007, 08:25 AM
Weak draft or not, you've gotta make high picks count.

I understand the sentiment, but if, in fact, the 2006 draft turns out similar to the 2000 draft (and I'm not trying to make the case that it will), Stubbs' failure will be seen as evidence of weak top-end talent as a whole, not as a poor selection.