PDA

View Full Version : Per Rosecrans Bubba outrighted to AAA



captainmorgan07
03-24-2007, 04:23 PM
bubba outright to triple A he has 72 hours to accept this

guttle11
03-24-2007, 04:25 PM
I've already accepted it. Does that count?

KronoRed
03-24-2007, 04:26 PM
Good.

Kc61
03-24-2007, 04:46 PM
Hamilton sealed Bubba's fate. How many lefty hitting outfielders can a team have?

If Reds go with a five man bench sounds to me like Deno, Hopper, Moeller and Bellhorn are competing for one spot. Two if a six man bench or if somebody gets DLd.

Eric_Davis
03-24-2007, 04:50 PM
Nice.

mth123
03-24-2007, 05:02 PM
Need some terminology help. Does "outright" remove a player from the 40 man roster? I think it does, but just looking for verification (which I can't find).

The Reds are going to need to clear a few 40 Man spots if guys like Hermanson or Santos are to be kept.

BEETTLEBUG
03-24-2007, 05:05 PM
Yes Or He Could Leave And The Same Thing Happens.

Tom Servo
03-24-2007, 05:18 PM
Bubba's been taken off the 40 man on the Reds.com

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 05:20 PM
Need some terminology help. Does "outright" remove a player from the 40 man roster? I think it does, but just looking for verification (which I can't find).

The Reds are going to need to clear a few 40 Man spots if guys like Hermanson or Santos are to be kept.

Santos won't make the team. He's injury insurance.

Strikes Out Looking
03-24-2007, 05:20 PM
What will the Bubbaloons do? Is there a Riverbatszone.com?

mth123
03-24-2007, 05:22 PM
Santos won't make the team. He's injury insurance.

Agreed, but we're a week from the roster being set and he's still here. With Maj, Bray, Lizard and others lame (and Milton and Lohse really lame) they need to make a spot if they are going to use him.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 05:25 PM
Agreed, but we're a week from the roster being set and he's still here. With Maj, Bray, Lizard and others lame (and Milton and Lohse really lame) they need to make a spot if they are going to use him.

Burton will likely make the team in Bray's absence. I'm not sure the Lizard makes the team, even if he's healthy.

mth123
03-24-2007, 05:28 PM
Burton will likely make the team in Bray's absence. I'm not sure the Lizard makes the team, even if he's healthy.

Agree right now. But I wonder about Milton and I could see a DL stint for his knee with a rehab to follow. I know we all want him released, but if they do anything, the DL is more likely and they'll need a spot if Santos is the guy.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 05:32 PM
I think it's funny how over the offseason people shouted me down when I said the rotation is STILL the main problem with this team; I was told, "no, no, we should be fine with the trio of Arroyo, Harang, and Lohse--and Milton's basically your average #4." Well, folks, here we are, just as I said, scrambling around like a guy late for an interview, hoping and praying that 60% of the rotation doesn't implode, night after night after night.

I still say Bailey for Jennings would have been a masterstroke deal, setting us up for a real run at the Central this year (plus we'd have gotten draft picks when he left via free agency).

Que sera sera. I guess that contention date gets pushed back 2008, eh? Better pray Homer's not a dud.

OnBaseMachine
03-24-2007, 05:37 PM
Yeah, trading the first or second best pitching prospect in baseball for a guy who has never posted a WHIP under 1.37 would have been a wonderful deal...for the Rockies. Homer Bailey for Jason Jennings? Good Lord FCB.

KoryMac5
03-24-2007, 05:39 PM
I think it's funny how over the offseason people shouted me down when I said the rotation is STILL the main problem with this team; I was told, "no, no, we should be fine with the trio of Arroyo, Harang, and Lohse--and Milton's basically your average #4." Well, folks, here we are, just as I said, scrambling around like a guy late for an interview, hoping and praying that 60% of the rotation doesn't implode, night after night after night.

I still say Bailey for Jennings would have been a masterstroke deal, setting us up for a real run at the Central this year (plus we'd have gotten draft picks when he left via free agency).

Que sera sera. I guess that contention date gets pushed back 2008, eh? Better pray Homer's not a dud.


Grand Master Falls City you are all seeing and knowing :bowrofl: I will reserve my judgement on the rotation for when the season starts.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 05:40 PM
Yeah, trading the first or second best pitching prospect in baseball for a guy who has never posted a WHIP under 1.37 would have been a wonderful deal...for the Rockies. Homer Bailey for Jason Jennings? Good Lord FCB.

Have you entertained the very real possibility, nay, probability that Bailey will be a bust? So the Reds have put off the real probability of contending this season for the slim possibility that Bailey doesn't flame out. What is the success rate (that is, becoming even an average major league starter) of even the bluest of blue chip pitching prospects? 3-5% At most?

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 05:43 PM
Grand Master Falls City you are all seeing and knowing :bowrofl: I will reserve my judgement on the rotation for when the season starts.

What we're banking on is that Belisle bucks his career injury trend to become a serviceable 3/4 pitcher. It's on that that the team's hope rests.

OnBaseMachine
03-24-2007, 06:07 PM
Have you entertained the very real possibility, nay, probability that Bailey will be a bust? So the Reds have put off the real probability of contending this season for the slim possibility that Bailey doesn't flame out. What is the success rate (that is, becoming even an average major league starter) of even the bluest of blue chip pitching prospects? 3-5% At most?

Have you entertained the possibility that Jennings is a bust? The guy has never posted a WHIP below 1.37. I would have loved to had Jennings cheaply, but there's no way I would deal Bailey for him, or even Cueto for that matter.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 06:35 PM
I would have loved to had Jennings cheaply, but there's no way I would deal Bailey for him, or even Cueto for that matter.

You'll be singing a different tune by the first of June.

RedsManRick
03-24-2007, 06:35 PM
FCB, show me a team that just loves it's #3-5 starters and can absolutely depend on their #1 & 2? The Red Sox maybe?

I'm not exactly digging our rotation myself, but it's league average, which is a lot better than it's been in a decade.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 06:38 PM
FCB, show me a team that just loves it's #3-5 starters and can absolutely depend on their #1 & 2? The Red Sox maybe?

I'm not exactly digging our rotation myself, but it's league average, which is a lot better than it's been in a decade.

My guess is that it's just a tick below league average right now. Which means that everything else (offense, defense, bullpen) has to be just that much better to offset the gravitational pull of the rotation. And I think you know that every other component of this ballclub is anywhere from below average to well-below average. A good rotation makes everything else better.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 06:40 PM
FCB, show me a team that just loves it's #3-5 starters and can absolutely depend on their #1 & 2? The Red Sox maybe?

I'm not exactly digging our rotation myself, but it's league average, which is a lot better than it's been in a decade.

The Yankees, the Pads, the Giants, the Cards, Milwaukee, Detroit.....

OnBaseMachine
03-24-2007, 06:54 PM
You'll be singing a different tune by the first of June.

Yeah I forgot, every Reds prospect sucks. If Homer Bailey or Cueto were Cardinals prospects, you would constantly make posts asking why the Reds couldn't find have prospects like that.

OnBaseMachine
03-24-2007, 06:56 PM
The Yankees, the Pads, the Giants, the Cards, Milwaukee, Detroit.....

Holy crap!! That is funny. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The Cardinals. Holy crap. The team that is marching Anthony Reyes, Braden Looper, Adam Wainwright, and Kip Wells out there four times a week. :laugh: :laugh:

WOW. I'm speechless. I really am.

jojo
03-24-2007, 06:57 PM
My guess is that it's just a tick below league average right now. Which means that everything else (offense, defense, bullpen) has to be just that much better to offset the gravitational pull of the rotation. And I think you know that every other component of this ballclub is anywhere from below average to well-below average. A good rotation makes everything else better.

Right now I don't even think the Reds rotation is division average....they might be the worst one in their division when it is all said and done....

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 06:58 PM
Yeah I forgot, every Reds prospect sucks. If Homer Bailey or Cueto were Cardinals prospects, you would constantly make posts asking why the Reds couldn't find have prospects like that.

No I wouldn't. I'd say the same thing I always say about hyped prospects: show me.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 06:59 PM
Right now I don't even think the Reds rotation is division average....they might be the worst one in their division when it is all said and done....

The Reds' rotation is as good as the Pirates'. Maybe a bit better if Belisle pans out.

OnBaseMachine
03-24-2007, 07:00 PM
No I wouldn't. I'd say the same thing I always say about hyped prospects: show me.

I doubt that.

Heath
03-24-2007, 07:00 PM
You'll be singing a different tune by the first of June.

Tell that to your avatar.

Jason Jennings for Homer Bailey is about as shortsighted as getting your tuxedo for wedding the night before.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 07:01 PM
Holy crap!! That is funny. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The Cardinals. Holy crap. The team that is marching Anthony Reyes, Braden Looper, Adam Wainwright, and Kip Wells out there four times a week. :laugh: :laugh:

WOW. I'm speechless. I really am.

Outside of Looper, that's a pretty high-ceiling bunch of arms there. Wainwright's got to show he can withstand the rigors of starting, true, but after seeing him last year, that's a gamble I'd be willing to take.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 07:03 PM
I doubt that.

Follow the trajectory of my postings: I am without question one of the most skeptical persons on this board vis. prospects. Not just Reds' prospects, either. It's a total and complete crapshoot, who makes it and who doesn't, especially in pitching.

Dracodave
03-24-2007, 07:05 PM
Holy crap!! That is funny. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The Cardinals. Holy crap. The team that is marching Anthony Reyes, Braden Looper, Adam Wainwright, and Kip Wells out there four times a week. :laugh: :laugh:

WOW. I'm speechless. I really am.

You are kidding right?

I trust Reyes over Santos, Loshe and Milton.

I trust Wainwright over them as well.

Wells is a decent number four or five, depending on how he gets used...

Carpenter/Harrang
Reyes/Arroyo
Wainwright/Loshe
Wells/Milton
Looper/Belisle-Saarloos-Santos-Livingston.

I give the full upper hand to St. Louis' rotation..in terms of getting better and being better.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 07:05 PM
Tell that to your avatar.

Jason Jennings for Homer Bailey is about as shortsighted as getting your tuxedo for wedding the night before.

Only if Bailey turns out to be a lot better than Jennings. Which are long, long odds.

cacollinsmba
03-24-2007, 07:06 PM
I think it's funny how over the offseason people shouted me down when I said the rotation is STILL the main problem with this team; I was told, "no, no, we should be fine with the trio of Arroyo, Harang, and Lohse--and Milton's basically your average #4." Well, folks, here we are, just as I said, scrambling around like a guy late for an interview, hoping and praying that 60% of the rotation doesn't implode, night after night after night.

I still say Bailey for Jennings would have been a masterstroke deal, setting us up for a real run at the Central this year (plus we'd have gotten draft picks when he left via free agency).

Que sera sera. I guess that contention date gets pushed back 2008, eh? Better pray Homer's not a dud.

I think there's merit to your point of view.

But my question would be - why is this the year to mortgage Bailey. Assume you are correct and he doesn't become a great pitcher. However, it would seem to me that if we are going to take that chance, we should have a good shot at winning the division/wildcard this year. Do you think that's doable, or are you looking at it from the standpoint that it's more valuable to get one year of Jennings and compensation picks?

jojo
03-24-2007, 07:06 PM
Holy crap!! That is funny. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The Cardinals. Holy crap. The team that is marching Anthony Reyes, Braden Looper, Adam Wainwright, and Kip Wells out there four times a week. :laugh: :laugh:

WOW. I'm speechless. I really am.

You shouldn't be because their rotation projects to be pretty good....

Carpenter is a legit TOR guy.. Looper,Reyes, and Wainright are projected to be roughly around 4 with their ERA's by most of the projection systems (though Pecota isn't quite so high on some of them). Wells and Mulder have good chances to be league average...

OnBaseMachine
03-24-2007, 07:06 PM
Outside of Looper, that's a pretty high-ceiling bunch of arms there. Wainwright's got to show he can withstand the rigors of starting, true, but after seeing him last year, that's a gamble I'd be willing to take.

Kip Wells has posted an ERA under 4.50 only twice in his career and has been awful the past two seasons. Reyes had an ERA over 5 last year and gave up homers at a Milton pace. I would easily take the Reds rotation over the Cardinals rotation.

Dracodave
03-24-2007, 07:10 PM
Kip Wells has posted an ERA under 4.50 only twice in his career and has been awful the past two seasons. Reyes had an ERA over 5 last year and gave up homers at a Milton pace. I would easily take the Reds rotation over the Cardinals rotation.


Reyes= First full year mlb starter last season. Don't think he might progress? You'd be a fool not to.

Wells= Scrap heap picking but hey it worked with Jeff Weaver right?

Wainwright= The man made Carlos Beltran look FOOLISH on a curveball with pressure on during the play-offs. Yeah, he's gonna suck.

Carpenter= Like Jojo said TOR and enough said.

Looper= The only real wild card her,e he could be diamonds or he could be coal...but hey who cares right? He'll still keep them in games.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 07:11 PM
I think there's merit to your point of view.

But my question would be - why is this the year to mortgage Bailey. Assume you are correct and he doesn't become a great pitcher. However, it would seem to me that if we are going to take that chance, we should have a good shot at winning the division/wildcard this year. Do you think that's doable, or are you looking at it from the standpoint that it's more valuable to get one year of Jennings and compensation picks?

I think you should try to win EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

In short, long-term plans fail.

Short-term plans (Oakland, Florida, Detroit) are way more successful.

jojo
03-24-2007, 07:11 PM
Kip Wells has posted an ERA under 4.50 only twice in his career and has been awful the past two seasons. Reyes had an ERA over 5 last year and gave up homers at a Milton pace. I would easily take the Reds rotation over the Cardinals rotation.

And you'd start getting alot of calls from guys like Beane and Bowden (that's not a good thing if you get my drift).... :cool:

RedsManRick
03-24-2007, 07:38 PM
I think you should try to win EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

In short, long-term plans fail.

Short-term plans (Oakland, Florida, Detroit) are way more successful.

And each of those teams won by developing their own top notch talent and supplementing that talent with veterans. They didn't trade their top prospects for average to above average veterans.

In each case, they developed in house top notch starting pitch which they could ride for a few years under market value. You have to actually develop some of your own talent.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2007, 07:47 PM
In each case, they developed in house top notch starting pitch which they could ride for a few years under market value. You have to actually develop some of your own talent.

No doubt. But clinging jealously to one trading chip is exactly what those teams didn't do when they had to.

Do you honestly think San Fran, for instance, still regrets giving up Nathan and that bum-armed starter? I mean, I suppose they did at the time, but let's face it, they survived that tough trade and they've got to be an odds on favorite to win the NL this year.

My point is that successful teams don't sit on every egg they lay like it's the only golden egg they've got.

OnBaseMachine
03-24-2007, 07:49 PM
Yes FCB, I'm sure the Giants would much rather have AJ Pierzynski over Joe Nathan and Francisco Liriano. I want some of what FCB has been smoking tonight.;)

thatcoolguy_22
03-24-2007, 07:54 PM
Tell that to your avatar.

Jason Jennings for Homer Bailey is about as shortsighted as getting your tuxedo for wedding the night before.

not making a move is like a fat man buying an engagement ring, tuxedo and renting a church for the 1st week of april 2008 before he has a g/f

jojo
03-24-2007, 07:58 PM
Yes FCB, I'm sure the Giants would much rather have AJ Pierzynski over Joe Nathan and Francisco Liriano. I want some of what FCB has been smoking tonight.;)

Liriano wasn't considered to be anything special by very many teams at the time of that trade.... Minnesota gets huge Kudos for what their system did with the guys they got back in that trade.....

This trade really isn't a good example to use to make your point IMHO....

guttle11
03-24-2007, 08:02 PM
Trading Homer for Jason Jennings has "Kazmir for Victor Zambrano" like possible outcomes.

jojo
03-24-2007, 08:23 PM
Trading Homer for Jason Jennings has "Kazmir for Victor Zambrano" like possible outcomes.

I agree, especially since I don't think Jennings is anything special....

But the point about Homer is a valid one..... I think Homer will definately be a major league contributor but I don't think its a settled question as to whether it will be as a starter or out of the pen....

guttle11
03-24-2007, 08:27 PM
I agree, especially since I don't think Jennings is anything special....

But the point about Homer is a valid one..... I think Homer will definately be a major league contributor but I don't think its a settled question as to whether it will be as a starter or out of the pen....


Definitely. And I normally would tend to agree with FCB's line of thinking, but this case is different. If you have a guy that almost unanimously considered to be one of the top 2 prospects at his position in all of baseball, you better get something substantial in return if you trade him. Jennings would not be near enough.

tripleaaaron
03-24-2007, 08:42 PM
No doubt. But clinging jealously to one trading chip is exactly what those teams didn't do when they had to.

Do you honestly think San Fran, for instance, still regrets giving up Nathan and that bum-armed starter? I mean, I suppose they did at the time, but let's face it, they survived that tough trade and they've got to be an odds on favorite to win the NL this year.

My point is that successful teams don't sit on every egg they lay like it's the only golden egg they've got.
I agree with what you are saying here but the only problem we have as Reds is that we currently only have 1-3 "Golden Eggs", we have to sit on them because we have so few. I hope our farm system soon develops to the point where we dont have to worry about our "golden eggs" because we have so many, but currently we can't afford to give up our one piece for just 1 above average pitcher, at this point it wouldn't give us enough wins to outweigh the opportunity cost, If our Lineup was better and we had a better bullpen and were JUST missing that piece, then definately. But the truth of the matter is, we are in Limbo caught in a middling team with two different directions to go, trading the biggest piece of our future for minimal present help would only be detrimental to the plan, no matter what that plan might be, unless we somehow get the wallet of Steinbrenner or a large donation of Stud Prospects from Billy Beane's farm system.

jojo
03-24-2007, 08:42 PM
Definitely. And I normally would tend to agree with FCB's line of thinking, but this case is different. If you have a guy that almost unanimously considered to be one of the top 2 prospects at his position in all of baseball, you better get something substantial in return if you trade him. Jennings would not be near enough.

I agree....not only would it be Jennings but it would be only a single year of Jennings.... I think Homer's potential is more compelling (5 years of cheap above average innings) than where Jennings could take the Reds this year...

WMR
03-24-2007, 08:55 PM
An important part of all this that I think you're overlooking, FCB, is that Homer has progressed past the 5% threshold of determining whether or not a #1 pitching prospect will actually become a TOR type starter.

Taking Homer where he's at RIGHT NOW, what are the chances that he becomes a TOR type pitcher? Much, much higher than 5%. A year ago? Maybe so. But not now.

Highlifeman21
03-24-2007, 11:59 PM
Burton will likely make the team in Bray's absence. I'm not sure the Lizard makes the team, even if he's healthy.

The Lizard shouldn't make the team, even if he's healthy.

Highlifeman21
03-25-2007, 12:02 AM
Have you entertained the possibility that Jennings is a bust? The guy has never posted a WHIP below 1.37. I would have loved to had Jennings cheaply, but there's no way I would deal Bailey for him, or even Cueto for that matter.

Both Cueto and Wood will be busts.

We should dump the both of them immediately for something that can actually help this team in the years between 2008-2010

OnBaseMachine
03-25-2007, 12:07 AM
Both Cueto and Wood will be busts.


Yep, because their Reds prospects. :rolleyes: Thanks for the well thought out post on why they will be busts. Nice insight.

There are a few posters on here who I believe would rather shoot themselves than to actually say something positive about the Reds. Baseball is a great game, why not enjoy it?

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 12:08 AM
But the point about Homer is a valid one..... I think Homer will definately be a major league contributor but I don't think its a settled question as to whether it will be as a starter or out of the pen....

That it's even being mentioned that Bailey might only be a bullpenner shows how volatile the perceptions of a prospect can be; if Bailey backslides even a little this season at AA or AAA, the Reds MLB team not only doesn't get anything this year from him, but they lose a ton in what they could potentially get for him in the offseason of 2007-2008.

Really, the philosophy should be "We will produce more Baileys; we will produce great things from our farm; losing one highly respected prospect won't sink this organization, because this organization and its philosophy is far bigger than one pitcher, no matter how highly regarded." A little arrogance is in order in my opinion. Couldn't hurt. Beats the goofy Silas Stingy stance they're now taking.

The focus should be on unseating the teams in front of us. Come hell or high water.

wpenn4
03-25-2007, 12:43 AM
Not to jump right in with the big dogs here, but FCB, I see a little fallacy with your argument. While I won't argue pitcher's numbers on what we could've had for Bailey, you mention that pitching prospects might work out at a 3-5% range. However, you say we should have traded for Jennings and the "draft picks" we'd get when he leaves. Since we all know we need more pitching, there's a good chance these draft picks would be pitchers, right? So wouldn't that just start the whole cycle over again? Especially since the odds are against Jennings making us a playoff contender anyway.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 12:52 AM
Not to jump right in with the big dogs here, but FCB, I see a little fallacy with your argument. While I won't argue pitcher's numbers on what we could've had for Bailey, you mention that pitching prospects might work out at a 3-5% range. However, you say we should have traded for Jennings and the "draft picks" we'd get when he leaves. Since we all know we need more pitching, there's a good chance these draft picks would be pitchers, right? So wouldn't that just start the whole cycle over again? Especially since the odds are against Jennings making us a playoff contender anyway.

Draft picks lead to prospects. Prospects are needed. In bulk: some to keep, some for trading chips. Some will, undoubtedly, rise to the top and become MLB contributors for the Reds. I'm not saying they won't. It's just such a crapshoot that I think it's high inadvisable to place every bit of hope and faith in one arm, no matter how good. There will be others. Many others.

The problem lies in saying: this is it, this is the one. Chances are it won't be the one.

And to the issue of Jennings making the Reds a playoff contender: nothing's a guarantee, but adding Jennings, plus a rotator cuff tear for Chris Carpenter changes things immensely. A lot of things happen in a season; better to be overprepared than banking on stooges like Lohse, Milton, and whatever dreck is being asked to log a bunch of innings for this squad.

Right now, as we speak, this team has next to no chance to make the playoffs, even with a bunch of breaks going their way.

jojo
03-25-2007, 01:01 AM
That it's even being mentioned that Bailey might only be a bullpenner shows how volatile the perceptions of a prospect can be; if Bailey backslides even a little this season at AA or AAA, the Reds MLB team not only doesn't get anything this year from him, but they lose a ton in what they could potentially get for him in the offseason of 2007-2008.

Really, the philosophy should be "We will produce more Baileys; we will produce great things from our farm; losing one highly respected prospect won't sink this organization, because this organization and its philosophy is fabigger than one pitcher, no matter how highly regarded." A little arrogance is in order in my opinion. Couldn't hurt. Beats the goofy Silas Stingy stance they're now taking.

The focus should be on unseating the teams in front of us. Come hell or high water.

Right but given their ages and salaries Homer has a much greater potential reward than Jennings. If Homer never does anything more than gives the Reds 4 years from the backend of the rotation at a FIP of 4.60 before his arm falls off (which is worse than his projections suggest he might be), his worth would be magnitudes greater than that of Jennings who now gives innings at a more premium price (thought his projections suggest he's peaked and will be getting paid for decline)...

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 01:04 AM
Right but given their ages and salaries Homer has a much greater potential reward than Jennings. If Homer never does anything more than gives the Reds 4 years at a FIP of 4.60 from the backend of the rotation before his arm falls off (which is worse than his projections suggest he might be), his worth would be magnitudes greater than that of Jennings who now gives innings at a more premium price (thought his projections suggest he's peaked and will be getting paid for decline)...

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow....

And I'm only saying keep Jennings for this season, so we won't really be paying him for decline. He's still cheap this season.

It's a gamble. Admittedly. But it's the right kind of gamble.

guttle11
03-25-2007, 01:09 AM
Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow....

And I'm only saying keep Jennings for this season, so we won't really be paying him for decline. He's still cheap this season.

It's a gamble. Admittedly. But it's the right kind of gamble.

I'd be with you if it was, say, Cueto and Denorfia, but Homer's too valuable. If I'm trading Homer, it would be for a guy with a better career WHIP than 1.55.

dougdirt
03-25-2007, 01:25 AM
I agree with what you are saying here but the only problem we have as Reds is that we currently only have 1-3 "Golden Eggs", we have to sit on them because we have so few. I hope our farm system soon develops to the point where we dont have to worry about our "golden eggs" because we have so many, but currently we can't afford to give up our one piece for just 1 above average pitcher, at this point it wouldn't give us enough wins to outweigh the opportunity cost, If our Lineup was better and we had a better bullpen and were JUST missing that piece, then definately. But the truth of the matter is, we are in Limbo caught in a middling team with two different directions to go, trading the biggest piece of our future for minimal present help would only be detrimental to the plan, no matter what that plan might be, unless we somehow get the wallet of Steinbrenner or a large donation of Stud Prospects from Billy Beane's farm system.

Billy Beanes farm system has less stud prospects than the Reds system. In reality, maybe 3 or 4 teams have more stud prospects than we do in Bailey, Bruce and Votto. All of which currently rank higher than the highest A's prospect of Travis Buck....

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 01:28 AM
Tampa Bay has stud prospects but I don't think a single one of them is pitching.


Thats the only team I know that has a ton of stud prospects.

jojo
03-25-2007, 01:33 AM
But it's the right kind of gamble.

I disagree.....Youre suggesting the Reds trade away cheap talent AND take on significant salary. Organisations that consistantly do what you're suggesting with bonified starting pitching prospects have to be payroll heavy and that just isn't going to produce consistent winners in Cincinnati....

Say what you will about what the Reds payroll should be, but there are only a small select group of teams that can afford to consistently buy their rotations. There are even fewer that can afford to buy them if the currency is rotation worthy prospects (let alone ones that are as highly touted as Homer). The Yankees are the poster organisation for the approach you're suggesting and even they refuse to entertain offers for Hughes, a fellow that is analogous to Homer.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 01:38 AM
The Yankees are the poster organisation for the approach you're suggesting and even they refuse to entertain offers for Hughes, a fellow that is analogous to Homer.


I think you will even agree with this though. Hughes is closer to the majors than Bailey, and that's ten to one the reason why. Not to mention, Pavano bite them on the a$$, as Pettitte might this year as well.

dougdirt
03-25-2007, 01:39 AM
Tampa Bay has stud prospects but I don't think a single one of them is pitching.


Thats the only team I know that has a ton of stud prospects.

Jeff Niemann, Jacob McGee and Wade Davis are all top 100 prospects according to Baseball America.

jojo
03-25-2007, 01:41 AM
I think you will even agree with this though. Hughes is closer to the majors than Bailey, and that's ten to one the reason why. Not to mention, Pavano bite them on the a$$, as Pettitte might this year as well.

Yes, Hughes has better command....

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 01:42 AM
Jeff Niemann, Jacob McGee and Wade Davis are all top 100 prospects according to Baseball America.

I haven't checked position's of the players, that was my downfall. I took in the sheer quanity of them, which is what 11 from Tampa Bay alone? They have a stud minor league system and in the national league they could be a...

real team?

:laugh: :laugh:

dougdirt
03-25-2007, 01:45 AM
I haven't checked position's of the players, that was my downfall. I took in the sheer quanity of them, which is what 11 from Tampa Bay alone? They have a stud minor league system and in the national league they could be a...

real team?

:laugh: :laugh:

They will be a real team very soon in the AL East. Believe it.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 01:47 AM
Have you entertained the very real possibility, nay, probability that Bailey will be a bust? So the Reds have put off the real probability of contending this season for the slim possibility that Bailey doesn't flame out. What is the success rate (that is, becoming even an average major league starter) of even the bluest of blue chip pitching prospects? 3-5% At most?

3-5% for blue chip prospects? That's waaaaay off.

Here's a look at the top 5 pitching prospects before 2001 (I'm going to say that's about where the bluest of blue chip pitching prospects fall into). Lists from baseball America:



2001:

1. Beckett
2. Rauch
3. Sheets
4. Sabathia
5. Anderson

3/5 above average starters

2000:

1. Ankiel
2. Anderson
3. Patterson
4. Mulder
5. Wells

2/5 league average (You might even argue that Kip Wells has been league average, but I wont for arguments sake)

1999:

1. Ankiel
2. Chen
3. Penny
4. Anderson
5. Clement

2/5 league average

1998:

1. Wood
2. White
3. Benson
4. Pavano
5. Clement

This list is full of 4 picthers that have been league average at times, but haven't been able to stay healthy enough to be consistent, but the major league success has been there. Tough one to define. I'm going to say Clement for sure, and Benson who had 6 full seasons of 4.43 ERA ball.

So 3/5


1997:

1. Wood
2. White
3. Benson
4. Colon
5. Pavano

Basically same as above, Colon replaces Clement

3/5.


1996:

1. Paul Wilson
2. Alan Benes
3. Livan Hernandez
4. Jason Schmidt
5. Matt Drews

2/5


1995:

1. Armando Benitez
2. Bill Pulsipher
3. Alan Benes
4. Antonio Osuna
5. Paul Wilson

0/5, but Benitez, was just as valuable as an average starter (but that's not what this particualr topic is about but I could see a 1/5 here in terms of actual value)

1994:

1. James Baldwin
2. Jose Silva
3. Darren Dreifort
4. Steve Karsay
5. Chan Ho Park

1/5 in Chan Ho Park with a decent closer in Karsay, which is also a success.


Anyways, thats a prety good sample right there of modern picthers. These are the guys that will all still populate the major leagues, so it's a pretty good guide in effectively judging the top pitching prospects of this generation. Out of the last 40 or so blue chip prospects (with some repeats in there), 16 (40%) were at least average, plus 2 of them had very nice success as closers.

That's only a smaller sample, but that is the most recent sample, so it should be taken pretty seriously), and these were the guys that were comparable prospect wise to Bailey. 40% may not be the number throughout histroy for prospects, but the true answer is a lot more than 3-5%. you are way off with that number. It's not even in the ballpark. According to your theory there should only be about 1-2 at least average starters.

So basically, for 1 year of Jennings, you are trading away a 35-40% chance of having a Jennings calibre pitcher (or better) under control for 6 seasons guaranteed. That opportunity is worth far more, especially for a team that doesn't seem to be a top dog for this season even with Jennings on the squad.

EDIT: Accidentally, I overlooked Kerry Wood as a success rather than a failure. Everything is updated.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 01:49 AM
I really do wish the best for Tampa. I joke around alot but they have been flying under the radar and drafting up for so long that it was just a matter of time before they got the talent to win.

Plus, they don't trade much and hosed the Mets when they did. Kazmir is an amazing starting piece to build a rotation around.

I hate sayign this but years of losing really did pay off for them.

fearofpopvol1
03-25-2007, 01:54 AM
I think it's funny how over the offseason people shouted me down when I said the rotation is STILL the main problem with this team; I was told, "no, no, we should be fine with the trio of Arroyo, Harang, and Lohse--and Milton's basically your average #4." Well, folks, here we are, just as I said, scrambling around like a guy late for an interview, hoping and praying that 60% of the rotation doesn't implode, night after night after night.

Yes, and you also said Sarloos was a fantastic pickup who was going to bolster the rotation...

Edited to add:

I see the logic behind your post. Prospects are a gamble for sure and all eggs should not be put in one basket for Bailey. However, if you're suggesting Bailey be traded for a career 4.74 ERA pitcher, that just seems illogical. He's too valuable for that right now. The Reds can definitely fetch more than a Jennings type for Bailey.

jojo
03-25-2007, 02:21 AM
An important part of all this that I think you're overlooking, FCB, is that Homer has progressed past the 5% threshold of determining whether or not a #1 pitching prospect will actually become a TOR type starter.

Taking Homer where he's at RIGHT NOW, what are the chances that he becomes a TOR type pitcher? Much, much higher than 5%. A year ago? Maybe so. But not now.

Homer isn't just a pitching prospect....he's one of the best prospects in baseball..... He already has TOR stuff-all thats keeping him from the rotation is part command and part needing to learn to *pitch*. There aren't many people who doubt he'll be in the majors in some capacity by this season. While lots of things can happen to pitchers, at this point there is no reason to doubt that he will develop into a quality major league starter. He's past the "5% threshhold" as its less a question of if and more a question of when with him....

jojo
03-25-2007, 02:23 AM
So basically, for 1 year of Jennings, you are trading away a 30-35% chance of having a Jennings calibre pitcher (or better) under control for 6 seasons guaranteed. That opportunity is worth far more, especially for a team that doesn't seem to be a top dog for this season even with Jennings on the squad.

Yes...the reward/risk is in favor of Homer....

WMR
03-25-2007, 02:40 AM
Homer isn't just a pitching prospect....he's one of the best prospects in baseball..... He already has TOR stuff-all thats keeping him from the rotation is part command and part needing to learn to *pitch*. There aren't many people who doubt he'll be in the majors in some capacity by this season. While lots of things can happen to pitchers, at this point there is no reason to doubt that he will develop into a quality major league starter. He's past the "5% threshhold" as its less a question of if and more a question of when with him....

100% agreed.

Thanks AK and Jojo.

tripleaaaron
03-25-2007, 02:47 AM
Billy Beanes farm system has less stud prospects than the Reds system. In reality, maybe 3 or 4 teams have more stud prospects than we do in Bailey, Bruce and Votto. All of which currently rank higher than the highest A's prospect of Travis Buck....

Thats not the point, the drop off after our studs is tremendous, at least they have some players who have potential to be solid players, we have 2-3 great prospects then jack crap.

dougdirt
03-25-2007, 03:08 AM
Thats not the point, the drop off after our studs is tremendous, at least they have some players who have potential to be solid players, we have 2-3 great prospects then jack crap.

I hardly consider Johnny Cueto, Travis Wood, Drew Stubbs, Milton Loo, Chris Valaika "jack crap". Baseball America ranked Stubbs in the top 100, Johnny Cueto just missed the top 100, and fell between 100 and 105. Travis Wood is a top 130 guy. So at the very least the Reds go 8 deep before the talent drops off a little bit, but then you are still discounting guys like Janish, Lecure, Ravin, Coutlangus, Medlock, Salmon, Dickerson (who can be a very good bench player in the majors today with his defense and speed) who all have things they bring to the table that can get them to the big leagues one day....

Not to mention the players we traded off this year for major league guys with Zach Ward, David Shafer, Javon Moran, Brandon Roberts.... all of whom had very good things going for them at the time they were traded. I think the Reds system has been bad for so long that people think its still like that. Truth is, the Reds system is better off than a lot of people think it is.

cacollinsmba
03-25-2007, 05:08 AM
They will be a real team very soon in the AL East. Believe it.

Not with the current ownership and management structure. Until the investment bankers find a way to transform the team into the Las Vegas Sunrays and cash out, that team is in a holding pattern.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 10:41 AM
Homer isn't just a pitching prospect....he's one of the best prospects in baseball..... He already has TOR stuff-all thats keeping him from the rotation is part command and part needing to learn to *pitch*. There aren't many people who doubt he'll be in the majors in some capacity by this season. While lots of things can happen to pitchers, at this point there is no reason to doubt that he will develop into a quality major league starter. He's past the "5% threshhold" as its less a question of if and more a question of when with him....

If he hasn't learned command he does NOT have TOR stuff. When/if he does learn command, he might have TOR stuff.

You said it yourself, we don't even know if he's a starter or bullpenner, the difference between which in terms of value is massive.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 10:50 AM
3-5% for blue chip prospects? That's waaaaay off.

Here's a look at the top 5 pitching prospects before 2001 (I'm going to say that's about where the bluest of blue chip pitching prospects fall into). Lists from baseball America:



2001:

1. Beckett
2. Rauch
3. Sheets
4. Sabathia
5. Anderson

3/5 above average starters

2000:

1. Ankiel
2. Anderson
3. Patterson
4. Mulder
5. Wells

2/5 league average (You might even argue that Kip Wells has been league average, but I wont for arguments sake)

1999:

1. Ankiel
2. Chen
3. Penny
4. Anderson
5. Clement

2/5 league average

1998:

1. Wood
2. White
3. Benson
4. Pavano
5. Clement

This list is full of 4 picthers that have been league average at times, but haven't been able to stay healthy enough to be consistent, but the major league success has been there. Tough one to define. I'm going to say Clement for sure, and Benson who had 6 full seasons of 4.43 ERA ball.

So 2/5


1997:

1. Wood
2. White
3. Benson
4. Colon
5. Pavano

Basically same as above, Colon replaces Clement

2/5.


1996:

1. Paul Wilson
2. Alan Benes
3. Livan Hernandez
4. Jason Schmidt
5. Matt Drews

2/5


1995:

1. Armando Benitez
2. Bill Pulsipher
3. Alan Benes
4. Antonio Osuna
5. Paul Wilson

0/5, but Benitez, was just as valuable as an average starter (but that's not what this particualr topic is about but I could see a 1/5 here in terms of actual value)

1994:

1. James Baldwin
2. Jose Silva
3. Darren Dreifort
4. Steve Karsay
5. Chan Ho Park

1/5 in Chan Ho Park with a decent closer in Karsay, which is also a success.


Anyways, thats a prety good sample right there of modern picthers. These are the guys that will all still populate the major leagues, so it's a pretty good guide in effectively judging the top pitching prospects of this generation. Out of the last 40 or so blue chip prospects (with some repeats in there), 14 (35%) were at least average, plus 2 of them had very nice success as closers.

That's only a smaller sample, but that is the most recent sample, so it should be taken pretty seriously), and these were the guys that were comparable prospect wise to Bailey. 35% may not be the number throughout histroy for prospects, but the true answer is a lot more than 3-5%. you are way off with that number. It's not even in the ballpark. According to your theory there should only be about 1-2 at least average starters.

So basically, for 1 year of Jennings, you are trading away a 30-35% chance of having a Jennings calibre pitcher (or better) under control for 6 seasons guaranteed. That opportunity is worth far more, especially for a team that doesn't seem to be a top dog for this season even with Jennings on the squad.

Besides Beckett, which of those blue chip guys was 21 when considered a blue chipper?

Bailey has at least a year, maybe two, before he would impact a MLB starting rotation. Tons of time to flame out.

Which is why I'd like to see him in the bullpen this season.

mth123
03-25-2007, 10:55 AM
Besides Beckett, which of those blue chip guys was 21 when considered a blue chipper?

Bailey has at least a year, maybe two, before he would impact a MLB starting rotation. Tons of time to flame out.

Which is why I'd like to see him in the bullpen this season.

At 21, and having never pitched a starters workload, a season in the pen is a good way to increase that chance of flaming out unless your going to leave him in the pen as a 70 inning guy permanently.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 10:57 AM
At 21, and having never pitched a starters workload, a season in the pen is a good way to increase that chance of flaming out unless your going to leave him in the pen as a 70 inning guy permanently.

I'm just not sure I believe that's provable.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 11:02 AM
At 21, and having never pitched a starters workload, a season in the pen is a good way to increase that chance of flaming out unless your going to leave him in the pen as a 70 inning guy permanently.

I know he's not 21 but we'll see what happens to Wainwright first than make a call.

mth123
03-25-2007, 11:08 AM
I'm just not sure I believe that's provable.

Then I err on the side of caution. He is being groomed to be a starter. This season he isn't ready. He needs to continue to build his innings. He could do that as a major league 5th starter I suppose, but its easier to protect him in AAA.

After that is done, he'll be ready for the majors. If he needs time in the pen to get exposure to major league hitters and major league life after that, so be it. But I build his innings and protect his arm first. If he pitches 70 innings in the pen for a lost cause in 2007, he still won't be ready to assume a starters load in 2008 when hopefully the team will have a better chance.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 11:10 AM
In the end it's kind of pointless: Bailey's not going anywhere, the Reds still have a crap rotation.

And the Central is still up for grabs.

Highlifeman21
03-25-2007, 11:29 AM
Yep, because their Reds prospects. :rolleyes: Thanks for the well thought out post on why they will be busts. Nice insight.

There are a few posters on here who I believe would rather shoot themselves than to actually say something positive about the Reds. Baseball is a great game, why not enjoy it?

Their development when factoring their age and level of experience in the minors puts them in the bust category for me.

If either of them had put up significant numbers in AA last year, I would be singing a different tune, but you're still looking at minimum two years before they'll even sniff AAA.

Ship them out for something that can make a positive contribution within that two year window rather holding onto this youngsters who are at best two years away.

I guarantee had we shipped Freel and one of either Cueto or Wood, or heck, even both of them with Freel to Colorado, we would have gotten Jason Jennings.

Instead, Houston stole him from us.

I'd rather have Jason Jennings for 2007, and tried to re-sign him, than take a chance on two kids in probably 2009 at the earliest. Call me crazy, but I'm sick of losing.

I love the Reds, but I'm frustrated with the level of short-sightedness of our farm system. Our "long-term" plan with prospects isn't working. Bruce, Votto and Bailey will be the only three from our current crop of prospects that will ever play in the majors and make a positive contribution.

mth123
03-25-2007, 11:30 AM
In the end it's kind of pointless: Bailey's not going anywhere, the Reds still have a crap rotation.

And the Central is still up for grabs.

The Central may be up for grabs, but the Reds aren't a team in range of grabbing it. Not even if Bailey comes up and is lights out in the pen.

Earlier, in another thread, you posted the most correct thing that you have said. That is that a good 3rd starter would make this team competitive enough to hide its other problems. I think this team is below average in all areas with the Rotation being the closest to average (say C- or D+) of any area on the team. Adding a good 3rd starter would put them above average and a team can compete with an above average rotation despite problems in other areas. The Offense is probably a solid D to D- right now and would need at least two solid power bats (say a long shot from Votto and Hamilton) to become an offense that can outslug a bad pitching staff's problems. The Bullpen is an F IMO and that is only because F- isn't a grade. Sticking Bailey in the pen isn't going to provide enough improvement to change this team's fate. So, why risk it?

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 11:44 AM
The Central may be up for grabs, but the Reds aren't a team in range of grabbing it. Not even if Bailey comes up and is lights out in the pen.

Earlier, in another thread, you posted the most correct thing that you have said. That is that a good 3rd starter would make this team competitive enough to hide its other problems. I think this team is below average in all areas with the Rotation being the closest to average (say C- or D+) of any area on the team. Adding a good 3rd starter would put them above average and a team can compete with an above average rotation despite problems in other areas. The Offense is probably a solid D to D- right now and would need at least two solid power bats (say a long shot from Votto and Hamilton) to become an offense that can outslug a bad pitching staff's problems. The Bullpen is an F IMO and that is only because F- isn't a grade. Sticking Bailey in the pen isn't going to provide enough improvement to change this team's fate. So, why risk it?

Putting Bailey in the pen isn't going to vault the Reds to the Central title, no; I just think it's the quickest route to him gaining confidence at the MLB level.

No, competing in the Central will require a very steady #3 starter (and a nice little surprise out of the 4 or 5 spot).

jojo
03-25-2007, 12:06 PM
If he hasn't learned command he does NOT have TOR stuff. When/if he does learn command, he might have TOR stuff.

You said it yourself, we don't even know if he's a starter or bullpenner, the difference between which in terms of value is massive.

Right but he has some command issues...that's a dramatically different thing then needing to learn command. He already has three major league quality pitches- a plus fastball, a bonafide 12/6 curve and a rapidly maturing changeup.... That's TOR stuff even if he struggles with his command at times. If he continues to improve his ability to change speeds on his fastball, he could be unhittable when he's on... Right now it's simple. He relies on his fastball too much and he could stand to throw more strikes. He's reaching a level where he simply can't blow away the majority of hitters and now he has to clear the last hurdle-learning how to get guys out by mixing his stuff up.

While there is a dramatic difference in the value of a bullpenner and a starter, there isn't necesarily a dramatic difference between their skills. Basically bullpen is his worst case projection....he has to have a melon head and be incapable of maturing/learning the art of mixing pitches and he has to prove incapable of throwing three major league quality pitches in order to be a bullpenner. While thats certainly a possibility (and why I mentioned it earlier) I haven't heard anyone suggest either of those are a real concern at this point...

He just might not get here until 12pm (maybe even 12:30) and we're all wanting him to arrive at 11:30..... I think we need to view his development not from the standpoint of how soon the Reds need him but rather from a perspective of what's left in his development and how likely is he to be able to make the adjustments.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 12:13 PM
Right but he has some command issues...that's a dramatically different thing then needing to learn command. He already has three major league quality pitches- a plus fastball, a bonafide 12/6 curve and a rapidly maturing changeup.... That's TOR stuff even if he struggles with his command at times. If he continues to improve his ability to change speeds on his fastball, he could be unhittable when he's on... Right now it's simple. He relies on his fastball too much and he could stand to throw more strikes. He's reaching a level where he simply can't blow away the majority of hitters and now he has to clear the last hurdle-learning how to get guys out by mixing his stuff up.

While there is a dramatic difference in the value of a bullpenner and a starter, there isn't necesarily a dramatic difference between their skills. Basically bullpen is his worst case projection....he has to have a melon head and be incapable of maturing/learning the art of mixing pitches and he has to prove incapable of throwing three major league quality pitches in order to be a bullpenner. While thats certainly a possibility (and why I mentioned it earlier) I haven't heard anyone suggest either of those are a real concern at this point...

He just might not get here until 12pm (maybe even 12:30) and we're all wanting him to arrive at 11:30..... I think we need to view his development not from the standpoint of how soon the Reds need him but rather from a perspective of what's left in his development and how likely is he to be able to make the adjustments.

Tomato, tomahto. If he can't do with the ball what he wants to do with the ball, that's a command problem, something which does NOT necessarily prefigure TOR success.

If or when he DOES get the ball to do what he wants it to do, then he'll have TOR stuff. But it's in that gap between "could" and "will" that a vast ocean sits. And so we wait. And pray.

jojo
03-25-2007, 12:13 PM
Which is why I'd like to see him in the bullpen this season.

I absolutely agree with this point.... While in Louisville this year, Bailey should get plenty of innings to work on stamina and learn how to better get guys out without blowing them away and how to adjust better to the second and third times through the lineup etc...

I have no problems with him being called up to be cavalry for the bullpen after July if the Reds are within distance of the playoffs... He's being groomed to be a starter but a short sting in the pen isn't going to hurt that effort...

PuffyPig
03-25-2007, 12:21 PM
Wells= Scrap heap picking but hey it worked with Jeff Weaver right?



If you call posting a 5.18 ERA with 5 QS in 15 chances, yeah it workd out fine.

Don't let one WS win fool you into thinking that Weavers was, and still is, a very bad pitcher.

The Cards rotauon can be good, but you've got 3 pitchers in there that have never had any major league success as a starter, and 1 who had some success years ago, but is battling back from injuries.

It's far from a certain rotation.

jojo
03-25-2007, 12:22 PM
Tomato, tomahto. If he can't do with the ball what he wants to do with the ball, that's a command problem, something which does NOT necessarily prefigure TOR success.

If or when he DOES get the ball to do what he wants it to do, then he'll have TOR stuff. But it's in that gap between "could" and "will" that a vast ocean sits. And so we wait. And pray.


Right but youre arguing that because the gap exists you're better off trading him for instant gratification. You're ignoring the likelihood that Homer will infact bridge the gap. There just aren't many people familiar with Bailey's development that think he won't cross the gap at this point. So basically, because he's not on the timetable of those wanting a playoff appearance in '07, you want to exchange the reasonable likelihood of 6 relatively cheap years of at least league average for one year of Jennings at an expensive league average.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 12:25 PM
Besides Beckett, which of those blue chip guys was 21 when considered a blue chipper?



Sabathia, Penny, Wood, Hernandez, Park.

Along with Beckett, just about half of the successes were from guys aged 21.

Here's the fun thing. These are the aged 21 and under failures: Anderson, Ankiel, White, Pavano, and Silva. Only five! Plus Ryan Anderson also failed as an above age 21 blue chipper which kind of defeats the purpose.

But anyways for the aged 21 guys we have a success rate of 6/11 or 55%.

It seems that when a young guy like Bailey makes the top 5 at such a young age, that it's really just a testament to his true ability to get have chance of being at worst, a league average starter for at worst 5 years. The older guys who make the top 5 is generally because of how advanced they are, which doesn't neccessarily lead to great success. I t really shows the great TOR stuff that Homer posesses.

Kudos to Bailey for alligning the odds in his favour.

EDIT: Pavano was really more of a failure, so I moved him to the other side and fixed the calculations.

PuffyPig
03-25-2007, 12:30 PM
However, if you're suggesting Bailey be traded for a career 4.74 ERA pitcher, that just seems illogical. He's too valuable for that right now. The Reds can definitely fetch more than a Jennings type for Bailey.

You forgot, trade Bailey for a 1 year rental of a 4.74 ERA pitcher???

If we really wanted to trade Bailey, we would need to fetch a guy like Dan Haren, who's better than Jennings and, just as importantly, under our financial control at a reasonable rate for some years to come.

M2
03-25-2007, 12:44 PM
I'm with FCB. I'd have looked to move Bailey for the best pitcher I could land. I understand that's against-the-grain thinking, but, IMO, the Reds, lacking money to throw at problems, need to think against the grain.

While it would be scary to put so many eggs in the 2007 basket, if the team had moved him for an established major league starter, we'd right now be feeling pretty cocky in these parts.

pedro
03-25-2007, 12:47 PM
I'm with FCB. I'd have looked to move Bailey for the best pitcher I could land. I understand that's against-the-grain thinking, but, IMO, the Reds, lacking money to throw at problems, need to think against the grain.

While it would be scary to put so many eggs in the 2007 basket, if the team had moved him for an established major league starter, we'd right now be feeling pretty cocky in these parts.


I understand the thinking but if they are truly lacking money to throw at problems why trade the one ML pitcher they have that may turn out to be good. That argument made more sense before last year and makes absolutely no sense if the proposed target is 1 year of Jason Jennings.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 12:47 PM
I'm with FCB. I'd have looked to move Bailey for the best pitcher I could land. I understand that's against-the-grain thinking, but, IMO, the Reds, lacking money to throw at problems, need to think against the grain.

While it would be scary to put so many eggs in the 2007 basket, if the team had moved him for an established major league starter, we'd right now be feeling pretty cocky in these parts.

IMO, trading Bailey is only a good move for the right pitcher.

Jennings is not that. 1 year for a guy who is barely above league average, that we could only afford for 1 season. With the multi year deals to Harang and Arroyo, I seriously doubt the Reds have the pocket to pay out another 4 year deal at 11-12M per season.

We need a pitcher that can help past 2007, as this is probably not the year where the Reds are set-up best for a play-off run.

As my father said, Haren would be a better target. A guy similar to Jennings, but under control for a greater length of time at an affordable rate. A move like that could help us now, and limit the potential damages in the future.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 01:22 PM
If the oppertunity arose and a team knocked on my door saying..

"We'll give you a major league ready number 2 starter, a good hitting/fielding catcher and any prospect of your choice for Bailey or Cueto."

I'd pull the trigger ten to one after seeing the names.

If the Padres knock on my door with
Peavy, Bard and my choice of prospects, I answer.


Just using this as an example.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 01:25 PM
If you call posting a 5.18 ERA with 5 QS in 15 chances, yeah it workd out fine.

Don't let one WS win fool you into thinking that Weavers was, and still is, a very bad pitcher.

The Cards rotauon can be good, but you've got 3 pitchers in there that have never had any major league success as a starter, and 1 who had some success years ago, but is battling back from injuries.

It's far from a certain rotation.


You're right they've got three pitchers without "proven" success.

However lets match them up.

Wainwright/Milton
Reyes/Loshe
Looper/Saarloos-Belisle

Wells is non-point cause he's battling off injuries and the "pittsburgh flu".

My point is this, I'd take Anthony Reyes and Adam Wainwright over our number three and four starters in a heart beat and why? Higher cielings, better stuff and youth. Milton and Loshe suck, will suck and have sucked. Reyes and Wainwright, can only get better..either league average or TOR. Doesn't matter.

redsmetz
03-25-2007, 01:41 PM
Sheesh, I go away for 36 hours and complete bedlam breaks out. What on earth happened that brought the crowd from Downers Grove out?

One of the best moves Wayne has made since he began here has been to NOT sacrifice the limited amount of potentially decent players to play solely for the now. And we're supposed ship out our top prospects for the quick fix? Haven't we been doing that for ten years?

Was the moon full this weekend? I swear it must have been.

dougdirt
03-25-2007, 01:42 PM
Tomato, tomahto. If he can't do with the ball what he wants to do with the ball, that's a command problem, something which does NOT necessarily prefigure TOR success.

If or when he DOES get the ball to do what he wants it to do, then he'll have TOR stuff. But it's in that gap between "could" and "will" that a vast ocean sits. And so we wait. And pray.

Yeah, he improved his walk rate over 2 entire batters from 05 to 06. That surely doesnt suggest he is getting better control does it? There is a 20 year old kid who still doesn't have full command of his pitches.... who would have ever imagined that. How many pitchers are EVER complete pitchers at that age? I am willing to bet its less then 0.5%. Homer still needs to learn to mix his stuff better, and AAA is a much better place to learn that.

FCB, I think you expect WAY too much out of prospects. The way you talk about them is that you want them to be finished products by the time they are 20 years old and ready to contribute fully to the major league team right then or they are worth trading away becuase they will never become much of anything. Jason Jennings and Homer Bailey if given the same amount of starts in the same line up would post very similar numbers this year.... except Bailey is a lot cheaper, would be getting better, and you would have him for another 5 years after that guarenteed. Take a look past the end of your nose and maybe reach out and look at your hand. You have to look a little bit past right here, right now, forget anything past that.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 02:20 PM
Yeah, he improved his walk rate over 2 entire batters from 05 to 06. That surely doesnt suggest he is getting better control does it? There is a 20 year old kid who still doesn't have full command of his pitches.... who would have ever imagined that. How many pitchers are EVER complete pitchers at that age? I am willing to bet its less then 0.5%. Homer still needs to learn to mix his stuff better, and AAA is a much better place to learn that.

FCB, I think you expect WAY too much out of prospects. The way you talk about them is that you want them to be finished products by the time they are 20 years old and ready to contribute fully to the major league team right then or they are worth trading away becuase they will never become much of anything. Jason Jennings and Homer Bailey if given the same amount of starts in the same line up would post very similar numbers this year.... except Bailey is a lot cheaper, would be getting better, and you would have him for another 5 years after that guarenteed. Take a look past the end of your nose and maybe reach out and look at your hand. You have to look a little bit past right here, right now, forget anything past that.


I'll go on record as saying Homer Bailey will not start a single MLB game this season. Not one.

Meanwhile Jennings will likely start 32 of them.

I don't expect much out of Bailey. I really don't care much one way or another about him. He's a prospect with very limited (60 innings) success.

I care about the MLB team. I want them to win, and with the right moves they could win more than they lose this season. With the wrong moves or inaction, they simply will not win more than they lose.

redsmetz
03-25-2007, 02:34 PM
I'll go on record as saying Homer Bailey will not start a single MLB game this season. Not one.

Meanwhile Jennings will likely start 32 of them.

I don't expect much out of Bailey. I really don't care much one way or another about him. He's a prospect with very limited (60 innings) success.

I care about the MLB team. I want them to win, and with the right moves they could win more than they lose this season. With the wrong moves or inaction, they simply will not win more than they lose.

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right about Bailey not playing at the ML level at all this year. But it is extremely shortsighted to not care on wit about what we are developing below the major league level. The truth is, even today, our prospects are spare, and we can ill afford to be cutting loose the couple few who may actually develop into decent major league players. I'm not interested in being the farm system to the other teams while giving away prospects for the instant gratification of now. It surprises me that you only want the here and now on the short term and could care less whether the entire organization is stabilized and providing Cincinnati fans long term stability and winning. Unbelievable.

pedro
03-25-2007, 02:42 PM
I'll go on record as saying Homer Bailey will not start a single MLB game this season. Not one.

Meanwhile Jennings will likely start 32 of them.

I don't expect much out of Bailey. I really don't care much one way or another about him. He's a prospect with very limited (60 innings) success.

I care about the MLB team. I want them to win, and with the right moves they could win more than they lose this season. With the wrong moves or inaction, they simply will not win more than they lose.

I'm just not sure why you target one year of Jason Jennings as the return you want for one of the two most highly touted pitching prospects in all of baseball. That's a horrible way to run a team in my opinion. Jennings just isn't that good. Sure he'd probably be an upgrade over our current 3-5 slots, but as a strategy long term success it's lousy. I know you don't believe in anything but trying to win now, even if it's just a division title, but honestly where would that leave the reds in 2008 and beyond when Jennings is gone and so is Bailey? Teams like the Reds can't mortgage their future for one year of service from players like Jason Jennings.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 02:43 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if you're right about Bailey not playing at the ML level at all this year. But it is extremely shortsighted to not care on wit about what we are developing below the major league level. The truth is, even today, our prospects are spare, and we can ill afford to be cutting loose the couple few who may actually develop into decent major league players. I'm not interested in being the farm system to the other teams while giving away prospects for the instant gratification of now. It surprises me that you only want the here and now on the short term and could care less whether the entire organization is stabilized and providing Cincinnati fans long term stability and winning. Unbelievable.

If we wanted long term all along.

We would have fire-saled Harang, Dunn, Griffey, Arroyo, Hatteberg and the list of others.

Instead we chosed a mixed route..

Get a bunch of declining players on the team, keep the major league team atleast league average..and draft. We aren't trading any of our players for prospects on any level. If we were what you said would be true as well. This is where the train of thought is really off. If we wanted to plan for long term, we'd have to bank success for prospects. Scrap this year and go for 2008/9.

Bruce, Bailey, Votto, Cueto, Pelland, Wood and Medlock won't save this originazation alone. If you want the prospects to flow, you have to start doing more than just drafting. Sign players from other countries, take risks that make sense, and more than anything DONT bank on the sucess of old players just to keep the MLB team surviving.

dougdirt
03-25-2007, 02:50 PM
I'll go on record as saying Homer Bailey will not start a single MLB game this season. Not one.

Meanwhile Jennings will likely start 32 of them.

I don't expect much out of Bailey. I really don't care much one way or another about him. He's a prospect with very limited (60 innings) success.

I care about the MLB team. I want them to win, and with the right moves they could win more than they lose this season. With the wrong moves or inaction, they simply will not win more than they lose.

You can take that stance if you like. Jennings will probably start 32 or so games.... but what are the odds he gives you something better than a 4.00 ERA? Considering his track record, not very good. He has, as you like to say 200 good innings in his entire major league career. Roughly, 22% of his career has he been above average. That means 78% of the time he was below average.
Now trust me, I care about the MLB team as well. I go to 25-30 games a year and I go every time hoping to win. Now you are right, with the right moves they can win more than they lose this year, but if they make the move you suggest, they surely wont be winning more than they lose anytime between 2008-2012 based on that move. You are being extremely short sighted in your approach. The Reds cant afford to mortgage their future on a guy like Jason Jennings. Smaller market teams cant trade off top 10 prospects in baseball for average at best talent on a 1 year contract. That is beyond stupid management.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 02:52 PM
I'm just not sure why you target one year of Jason Jennings as the return you want for one of the two most highly touted pitching prospects in all of baseball. That's a horrible way to run a team in my opinion. Jennings just isn't that good. Sure he'd probably be an upgrade over our current 3-5 slots, but as a strategy long term success it's lousy. I know you don't believe in anything but trying to win now, even if it's just a division title, but honestly where would that leave the reds in 2008 and beyond when Jennings is gone and so is Bailey? Teams like the Reds can't mortgage their future for one year of service from players like Jason Jennings.

It didn't have to be Jennings. It could have been a similar healthy relatively young and reasonably-priced (though price is a relatively minor consideration, IMO--I think this org. is swimming in luxury-tax cash) pitcher.

Someone said they thought this team has been spending for "right now" for the last 10 years. I think the exact opposite. They've been playing for tomorrow since 1996.

OnBaseMachine
03-25-2007, 02:53 PM
I still think the Rockies got the best pitcher in that deal - Jason Hirsh.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 02:54 PM
I still think the Rockies got the best pitcher in that deal - Jason Hirsh.

I don't.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 02:56 PM
You are being extremely short sighted in your approach. The Reds cant afford to mortgage their future on a guy like Jason Jennings. Smaller market teams cant trade off top 10 prospects in baseball for average at best talent on a 1 year contract. That is beyond stupid management.

You're right but look at what other "small market teams" did. They added even crappier players than Jennings. The Brewers added Suppan, The Royals added Meche.

pedro
03-25-2007, 02:58 PM
It didn't have to be Jennings. It could have been a similar healthy relatively young and reasonably-priced (though price is a relatively minor consideration, IMO--I think this org. is swimming in luxury-tax cash) pitcher.

Someone said they thought this team has been spending for "right now" for the last 10 years. I think the exact opposite. They've been playing for tomorrow since 1996.


Well, maybe since 2000. They clearly made trades for immediate need in 1999 (Juan Guzman).

My point is that what's past is past. The Reds have been run very poorly over the past 10+ years and as much as that is painful and annoying, there isn't anything that can be done about it now. Just because we as fans are sick of losing doesn't justify making more bad choices for the chance to maybe win 88 games and still get knocked out of the playoffs in the first round. It's going to take a few years to turn the ship around and while I know you want it all and you want it now (much like young ms. salt ;) ) I just don't think it's possible.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 02:58 PM
You can take that stance if you like. Jennings will probably start 32 or so games.... but what are the odds he gives you something better than a 4.00 ERA? Considering his track record, not very good. He has, as you like to say 200 good innings in his entire major league career. Roughly, 22% of his career has he been above average. That means 78% of the time he was below average.
Now trust me, I care about the MLB team as well. I go to 25-30 games a year and I go every time hoping to win. Now you are right, with the right moves they can win more than they lose this year, but if they make the move you suggest, they surely wont be winning more than they lose anytime between 2008-2012 based on that move. You are being extremely short sighted in your approach. The Reds cant afford to mortgage their future on a guy like Jason Jennings. Smaller market teams cant trade off top 10 prospects in baseball for average at best talent on a 1 year contract. That is beyond stupid management.

There's nothing shortsighted about MLB success. There is something incurious about sticking with the SOP of the Reds over the last 10 seasons.

pedro
03-25-2007, 03:06 PM
I would have preferred that the Reds had signed Tomo Ohka or traded for John Leiber if marginal improvement in the 3-5 slots is the goal. Both of those moves could have been made without losing Bailey and w/out long term financial commitments. Hell, take a flier on Carl Pavano. I like that idea better than Jason Jennings.

dougdirt
03-25-2007, 03:09 PM
There's nothing shortsighted about MLB success. There is something incurious about sticking with the SOP of the Reds over the last 10 seasons.

Sure there is. When you are trading 1 year of success for 4 or 5 years of success, which is likely to be as good or better success, then it is extremely short sighted.

dougdirt
03-25-2007, 03:12 PM
I still think the Rockies got the best pitcher in that deal - Jason Hirsh.

I agree. He reminds me in a lot of ways of Aaron Harang. Big tall righty with a 92-94 MPH FB (has touched 97 before) and a real good slider. His change up is average.

jojo
03-25-2007, 03:19 PM
It didn't have to be Jennings. It could have been a similar healthy relatively young and reasonably-priced (though price is a relatively minor consideration, IMO--I think this org. is swimming in luxury-tax cash) pitcher.

Someone said they thought this team has been spending for "right now" for the last 10 years. I think the exact opposite. They've been playing for tomorrow since 1996.

We have different philosophies which is fine. Playoff and world series appearances are huge financial windfalls for a francise. So making short term decisions for the now could at times reap a payoff that is greater than the long term option that was forgone. Philosophy should not get in the way of sound risk/reward decisions. In fact since the division appears to be so wide open this season and 85 wins might be enough for the playoffs, your argument for adding a third competent arm to the rotation is a fairly compelling one to me.

That being said, to me though the organisational goal should be to get to a level that allows you to compete for the world series as quickly as possible in the most sustainable way possible. I'd argue that while the payoff for a one time shot is huge, the payout over time for a sustainably competitive team should reasonably be expected to dwarf it. Using this as a guiding philosophy, I think one year of a Jennings (or whomever) is not as attractive as an '08-10 with Harang, Arroyo, Homer... A three year window with at least a league average 1-3 in the rotation coupled with a young core of cheap position players is a better risk to me than a team thats one year of a decent 1-3 in the rotation with a lineup whose ability to compete is questionable.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 03:27 PM
I agree. He reminds me in a lot of ways of Aaron Harang. Big tall righty with a 92-94 MPH FB (has touched 97 before) and a real good slider. His change up is average.

Thats a positive and a negative though.

What they got for Jennings was better than what they gave up? I don't think so. They filled in needs with some replacement level player, a kid who could be the next Harrang but isn't right now and a middle reliever from the same mold of Gary Majeswki.

They gave up a pitcher who had a good year for them for this, figuring they had no chance to re-sign said player.

Here's the scouting report I use for Jennings.


Scouting Report
Assets
His sinker has been described as "filthy" and it can reach the low 90s. It's a fantastic weapon for inducing grounders and he adds a slider and change to the mix. He also brings a frightening bat to his game.

Flaws
Lefties tend to give him grief and he doesn't get the first pitch in the zone often enough. Endurance has been a problem, but is improving.

Career potential

A good No. 3 guy in the rotation.




Home Colorado Rockies 5 5 3.56 15 15 2 1 0 0 101.0 99 42 40 9 0 45 65
Away Colorado Rockies 4 8 3.97 17 17 1 1 0 0 111.0 107 52 49 8 3 40 77


He posts a 3.97 era for The Stro's. They gave up what? A crappy centerfielder, a crappy middle reliever, and a "could be".

Thats what FCB is saying.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 03:29 PM
Sure there is. When you are trading 1 year of success for 4 or 5 years of success, which is likely to be as good or better success, then it is extremely short sighted.

It's really not "likely" that Bailey will give you 4 or 5 years of good or better success. Statistically, it's not better than a 50/50 chance. That's just wrong. It's just as likely, more likely, that he'll never start a MLB game.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 03:36 PM
He posts a 3.97 era for The Stro's. They gave up what? A crappy centerfielder, a crappy middle reliever, and a "could be".

Thats what FCB is saying.

But they didn't give up the 2nd best pitching prospect in baseball. A huge difference in cost in what FCB is suggesting.

You saw what I posted. That gives a rough estimate for Bailey's chances of succeeding, and the long term gamble is worth well more than the short term gain IMO.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 03:41 PM
It's just as likely, more likely, that he'll never start a MLB game.

Stop making up "facts". How do you figure he has the same odds as never even starting 1 game?

Of the players I listed before, exactly 5 have never started a major league game (Benitez, Osuna, Drews, White, and Anderson), two of which had major league success as relievers.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 03:46 PM
Stop making up "facts". How do you figure he has the same odds as never even starting 1 game?

Of the players I listed before, exactly 5 have never started a mjor league game (Benitez, Osuna, Drews, White, and Anderson), two of which had major league success as relievers.

I'm not making them up. No one is immune to injury and the vast, vast majority of minor league players (pitchers and hitters) never get a whiff of the majors.

Surely you're not going to argue that a majority of the minor league arms in all the systems of all the teams get at least one MLB start. Surely you're not suggesting that.

It's MOST likely that Homer Bailey will never start a MLB game. That is a fact if you base it on history. Is Bailey slightly more LIKELY to make it than a lot of other arms? Yes, marginally. But he's a AA pitcher; if he were a pitcher with more experience at AAA, and has proven he can handle the rigors of full season of starts, I might be leaning towards the "likely" prognosis. But that's not the case; it's LIKELY he'll never start a game in the majors.

TC81190
03-25-2007, 03:49 PM
Stop making up "facts". How do you figure he has the same odds as never even starting 1 game?

Of the players I listed before, exactly 5 have never started a major league game (Benitez, Osuna, Drews, White, and Anderson), two of which had major league success as relievers.

I agree, I'm sorry, but you're spouting a ridiculous amount of bull**** here FCB. Bailey will start a MLB game by the 1st of June.

pedro
03-25-2007, 03:50 PM
I have to disagree with you FCB. It's most likely that he does get a major league start. He's past that point in his development. 2 years ago I'd have agreed with you. Probably even before last year. But at this point he's pretty far along in his development and odds are he'll get a at least one start this year IMO.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 03:50 PM
I agree, I'm sorry, but you're spouting a ridiculous amount of bull**** here FCB. Bailey will start a MLB game by the 1st of June.

Classy.

Well, if the Reds are out of it by the first of June, you may be right; they may want to give the fans a bone to chew on.

He won't have any success however.

TC81190
03-25-2007, 03:51 PM
Classy.

Well, if the Reds are out of it by the first of June, you may be right; they may want to give the fans a bone to chew on.

He won't have any success however.

I just don't know how can say that with any degree of certainty, let alone the obstinate amount of it that you have in this thread.

pedro
03-25-2007, 03:52 PM
Classy.

Well, if the Reds are out of it by the first of June, you may be right; they may want to give the fans a bone to chew on.

He won't have any success however.

How can you be so sure?

redsmetz
03-25-2007, 03:52 PM
It's really not "likely" that Bailey will give you 4 or 5 years of good or better success. Statistically, it's not better than a 50/50 chance. That's just wrong. It's just as likely, more likely, that he'll never start a MLB game.

Well, of course, you're right. Since he plays in the Reds system, he'll turn out to be garbage, but if he's with someone else, he'll be the best thing since sliced bread. Oh dear Lord.

TC81190
03-25-2007, 03:53 PM
Well, of course, you're right. Since he plays in the Reds system, he'll turn out to be garbage, but if he's with someone else, he'll be the best thing since sliced bread. Oh dear Lord.

Ding ding ding.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 03:53 PM
I just don't know how can say that with any degree of certainty, let alone the obstinate amount of it that you have in this thread.

Say what? The part about success?

Or the part about him getting MLB starts?

You saw him in spring training; he was a boy among men. He got absolutely pummeled because he can't control his pitches.

TC81190
03-25-2007, 03:53 PM
Say what? The part about success?

Or the part about him getting MLB starts?

You saw him in spring training; he was a boy among men. He got absolutely pummeled because he can't control his pitches.

Bingo.

OnBaseMachine
03-25-2007, 03:54 PM
How can you be so sure?

He's not a Cardinals prospect.;)

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 03:54 PM
Bingo.

Trust me, Homer Bailey wasn't pitching like it was spring training. Homer Bailey was pitching to make the team. That was his best, best effort.

TC81190
03-25-2007, 03:55 PM
He's not a Cardinals prospect.;)

How 'bout that Anthony Reyes?

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 03:55 PM
I think the vast majority of prospects flame out early and stay out. Baileys yet to flame out, and thats really due to his command of the fastball, and having two good pitches to keep people off balance. Does that mean he will? No, but does he have the ablity to flame out? Every one does. I'm not wishing the kid ill but he's proclaimed as a hero and the next coming of Jesus..


He's never thrown a real MLB/AAA game where the hitters aren't adjusting, they aren't "getting used" to playing again and more importantly a league seeing him more than once.

He relied too heavily on his fastball. Reports I've heard about Hughes (And this is why I am convinced Hughes IS mlb ready) he doesn't relay on the fastball when in trouble. He can command his other pitches to a better extent.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 03:57 PM
How 'bout that Anthony Reyes?

The difference, of course, is that Reyes has a year at the MLB level. Not a great one, true, but he showed a number of good signs, particularly that he didn't flame out down the stretch. He actually had a pretty good September.

TC81190
03-25-2007, 03:57 PM
Trust me, Homer Bailey wasn't pitching like it was spring training. Homer Bailey was pitching to make the team. That was his best, best effort.

It was 3.2 innings.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 03:59 PM
It was 3.2 innings.

It doesn't matter. I don't need a huge sample to see he didn't have the ABILITY to retire MLB hitters. Not now. In the future, perhaps, but not now.

OnBaseMachine
03-25-2007, 04:00 PM
The difference, of course, is that Reyes has a year at the MLB level. Not a great one, true, but he showed a number of good signs, particularly that he didn't flame out down the stretch. He actually had a pretty good September.

He allowed 17 homeruns in 85 innings and walked 3.6 batters per 9 innings. If Bailey did that you would be calling for the Reds to release him. This is ridiculous. You defend every Cardinals player and bash anything the Reds do. I'm suspicious.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 04:00 PM
It was 3.2 innings.

Its not the innings.

It's what Homers said. He's been quoted as saying that he was trying to make the team, that was trying to do his best. No matter the amount of innings, or anything.

No one on this site can say they've never read that cause it's been posted everywhere.

reds44
03-25-2007, 04:01 PM
It doesn't matter. I don't need a huge sample to see he didn't have the ABILITY to retire MLB hitters. Not now. In the future, perhaps, but not now.
Right now maybe he doesn't, but in the future he will.

TC81190
03-25-2007, 04:02 PM
It doesn't matter. I don't need a huge sample to see he didn't have the ABILITY to retire MLB hitters. Not now. In the future, perhaps, but not now.

I'll give you that, but I'm not calling for him to be up right now.

TC81190
03-25-2007, 04:03 PM
Its not the innings.

It's what Homers said. He's been quoted as saying that he was trying to make the team, that was trying to do his best. No matter the amount of innings, or anything.

No one on this site can say they've never read that cause it's been posted everywhere.

So? You expect a guy to get on the top of his game in 3 and two thirds innings of live work? :rolleyes:

Caveat Emperor
03-25-2007, 04:04 PM
You saw him in spring training; he was a boy among men. He got absolutely pummeled because he can't control his pitches.

Most pitchers aren't the most pinpoint in the first couple weeks of spring.

Just sayin'...

OnBaseMachine
03-25-2007, 04:04 PM
Most pitchers aren't the most pinpoint in the first couple weeks of spring.

Just sayin'...

Please keep facts out of this conversation.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 04:07 PM
He allowed 17 homeruns in 85 innings and walked 3.6 batters per 9 innings. If Bailey did that you would be calling for the Reds to release him. This is ridiculous. You defend every Cardinals player and bash anything the Reds do. I'm suspicious.

Right. I'm one of the few on this board who believes Dunn can do no wrong. I'm one of the minority who loved the Arroyo deal. I really liked the Saarloos pickup. I like Belisle. I like Harang (not as much as a lot of folks on here, but I still do). I like Coffey. See a pattern? They're good players.

Can I really help it if the Cards make a big bunch of smart moves, time and time again? Why am I wrong for admitting that they're a well-run club?

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 04:07 PM
So? You expect a guy to get on the top of his game in 3 and two thirds innings of live work? :rolleyes:

No, I expected him to be doing what he did. Knowing what he has to do. He was unprepared when he couldn't whizz balls by the big league hitters. That was where it went south for Bailey. He was unprepared, and he showed it.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 04:08 PM
Most pitchers aren't the most pinpoint in the first couple weeks of spring.

Just sayin'...

What has Bailey been doing in minor league camp? (it's a secondary question) Or has he been shut down?

TC81190
03-25-2007, 04:08 PM
No, I expected him to be doing what he did. Knowing what he has to do. He was unprepared when he couldn't whizz balls by the big league hitters. That was where it went south for Bailey. He was unprepared, and he showed it.

I can't really argue with that. He still needs ML work but he'll be ready. 3.2 innings does not show that he's a bust, however.

OnBaseMachine
03-25-2007, 04:08 PM
Can I really help it if the Cards make a big bunch of smart moves, time and time again? Why am I wrong for admitting that they're a well-run club?

It's not that.

Homer Bailey dominates AA...he sucks. Anthony Reyes puts up Eric Milton type numbers and yet he's a stud. Hilarious.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 04:09 PM
It's not that.

Homer Bailey dominates AA...he sucks. Anthony Reyes puts up Eric Milton type numbers and yet he's a stud. Hilarious.

I don't think Reyes is a stud. I've never said that. And I've never said Bailey sucks.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 04:10 PM
Right. I'm one of the few on this board who believes Dunn can do no wrong. I'm one of the minority who loved the Arroyo deal. I really liked the Saarloos pickup. I like Belisle. I like Harang (not as much as a lot of folks on here, but I still do). I like Coffey. See a pattern? They're good players.

Can I really help it if the Cards make a big bunch of smart moves, time and time again? Why am I wrong for admitting that they're a well-run club?

Dave Duncan does wonders to really crappy pitchers. Of course luck plays a huge part of it as well.

Theres a difference when these players and Bailey. One everyone here isn't seeing.

Saarloos, Coffey (had to learn this the hardway) and Belisle have all learned to NOT relay on one pitch. Bailey did that in spring training and has no one to blame but his unpreparedness as to why he only got 3.2 innings. He was asked to use other pitches, did he? No. He got introuble and went back to the fastball. Time and Time again.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 04:10 PM
I'm not making them up. No one is immune to injury and the vast, vast majority of minor league players (pitchers and hitters) never get a whiff of the majors.

Surely you're not going to argue that a majority of the minor league arms in all the systems of all the teams get at least one MLB start. Surely you're not suggesting that.

What are you talking about????

You completely misinterpreted my post.

Bailey is not just any minor leaguer. His odds of success is clearly better than the average minor leaguer. It's not even close.

Based on past data, prospects of Bailey's calibre have a far greater chance of being at a minimum, league average starters, then they do of never starting an MLB game. At this juncture, Bailey cannot be treated with the same odds. he has progressed beyond the average major leaguer.

I'm not saying the data I showed is an all end to the argument or anything, but it's a pretty good rough guideline of picthers in Bailey's ballpark in modern day baseball. Those stats completely contradict what you have been saying this entire thread. Your odds for Bailey are completely unsupported. It's like you are drawing random numbers out of a hat.



It's MOST likely that Homer Bailey will never start a MLB game. That is a fact if you base it on history. Is Bailey slightly more LIKELY to make it than a lot of other arms? Yes, marginally. But he's a AA pitcher; if he were a pitcher with more experience at AAA, and has proven he can handle the rigors of full season of starts, I might be leaning towards the "likely" prognosis. But that's not the case; it's LIKELY he'll never start a game in the majors. It


You are wrong. At this point in Bailey's career, the odds are he will start a mjor league game. You'd be right if you said that the day he was drafted, but the odds have changed dramatically since that point. The rest of your claims are unfounded, and I have even supported some evidence to sugeest you are completely wrong. 21 year old blue chip prospects like Bailey over the past 8 years have had little difficulty making it to the majors and having success.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 04:12 PM
What are you talking about????

You completely misinterpreted my post.

Bailey is not just any minor leaguer. His odds of success is clearly better than the average minor leaguer. It's not even close.

Based on past data, prospects of Bailey's calibre have a far greater chance of being at a minimum, league average starters, then they do of never starting an MLB game. At this juncture, Bailey cannot be treated with the same odds. he has progressed beyond the average major leaguer.

I'm not saying the data I showed is an all end to the argument or anything, but it's a pretty good rough guideline of picthers in Bailey's ballpark in modern day baseball. Those stats completely contradict what you have been saying this entire thread. Your odds for Bailey are completely unsupported. It's like you are drawing random numbers out of a hat.





You are wrong. At this point in Bailey's career, the odds are he will start a mjor league game. You'd be right if you said that the day he was drafted, but the odds have changed dramatically since that point. The rest of your claims are unfounded, and I have even supported some evidence to sugeest you are completely wrong. 21 year old blue chip prospects like Bailey over the past 8 years have had little difficulty making it to the majors and having success.

Okay. Because he is hyped so much, you're probably right. He is probably likely to at least start a MLB game. I think the fans will clamor for it and the org. will want to deliver.

But I don't think it is likely at all that he'll be even an average major leaguer.

mth123
03-25-2007, 04:13 PM
Wow. This discussion went in a way different direction. I was one who wanted Jennings, but there is no way I ever would have targeted him for Bailey. Maybe Dontrelle Willis or some one of that caliber, but not Jennings. I think Jennings would have made an OK number 3 starter this year and I would have even offered him an extension to keep him around. But my proposal was Freel, Travis Wood and another pitcher (maybe Belisle or one of the bullpen geezers). The Rockies got a lot more than that and it turns out the Reds didn't have a match. The team just didn't have a ready now #3 starter prospect like Hirsch except for Bailey and Bailey as a potential TOR guy would have been an overpayment. I wanted Jennings badly and the team would be a real contender with another starter like him, but I would not have traded Bailey unless it was for a better caliber guy who would be here multiple years.

Jo Jo and others are right about cheap pre-free agent years. Its very important for a team like Cincy to cash in on that for all levels of talent. If there is a guy who can contribute for cheap in any way whether its a TOR guy, a middle reliever or RH 1B. People can deny the financial reality all they want but it does exist. If I have a valuable guy like Bailey who is going to be cheap for a while, it would take a lot to trade him.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 04:17 PM
Okay. Because he is hyped so much, you're probably right. He is probably likely to at least start a MLB game. I think the fans will clamor for it and the org. will want to deliver.

But I don't think it is likely at all that he'll be even an average major leaguer.

Well the things is, I'm using the same publication of these lists. Bailey is hyped up just as much as the other guys on that list, and logically, Bailey should have a similar chance to those other guys. And those guys had way better success than you ever gave them credit for, much like you have Bailey.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 04:21 PM
If I have a valuable guy like Bailey who is going to be cheap for a while, it would take a lot to trade him.

And my philosophy is: don't give up on today for a chance at tomorrow. There will be other prospects just as good as Bailey. If you don't have that belief and that confidence then you'll likely fail anyway.

You can't let prospects steer the ship of state. That's just backwards thinking.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 04:24 PM
And my philosophy is: don't give up on today for a chance at tomorrow. There will be other prospects just as good as Bailey. If you don't have that belief and that confidence then you'll likely fail anyway.

You can't let prospects steer the ship of state. That's just backwards thinking.

If you hold onto every prospect then you aren't getting ahead.

Take Detriot for example.

They gave up good pitching prospects for Gary Sheffield.

Arizona gave up good pitching prospects for Randy Johnson.

Both over paid but both teams are better for this year.

TC81190
03-25-2007, 04:27 PM
If you hold onto every prospect then you aren't getting ahead.

Take Detriot for example.

They gave up good pitching prospects for Gary Sheffield.

Arizona gave up good pitching prospects for Randy Johnson.

Both over paid but both teams are better for this year.

We aren't a team one piece away from a championship though. We have a loooong way to go.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 04:28 PM
If you hold onto every prospect then you aren't getting ahead.

Take Detriot for example.

They gave up good pitching prospects for Gary Sheffield.

Arizona gave up good pitching prospects for Randy Johnson.

Both over paid but both teams are better for this year.

True enough. And who's to say the rest of the team won't be in shambles by the time Bailey arrives?

Ultimately, the MLB team's goal is to win MLB games. Not to rear and coddle minor league arms. That's someone else's lookout.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 04:28 PM
If you hold onto every prospect then you aren't getting ahead.

Take Detriot for example.

They gave up good pitching prospects for Gary Sheffield.

Arizona gave up good pitching prospects for Randy Johnson.

Both over paid but both teams are better for this year.

Those examples proved nothing. We still haven't witnessed what those deals have done for their respective teams.

If Detroit misses the playoffs and Sanchez wins the Cy Young next season, will you still be supporting that deal?

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 04:29 PM
We aren't a team one piece away from a championship though. We have a loooong way to go.

But if you really believe in this team's GM and their philosophy (not just Homer Bailey), then they'll get there. Homer Bailey by himself won't get us there either. It's going to take a lot of effort on a lot of fronts to get and sustain success at the MLB level.

TC81190
03-25-2007, 04:30 PM
But if you really believe in this team's GM and their philosophy (not just Homer Bailey), then they'll get there. Homer Bailey by himself won't get us there either. It's going to take a lot of effort on a lot of fronts to get and sustain success at the MLB level.

A Homer Bailey, Jay Bruce, and Joey Votto very well could though.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 04:31 PM
Those examples proved nothing. We still haven't witnessed what those deals have done for their respective teams.

If Detroit misses the playoffs and Sanchez wins the Cy Young next season, will you still be supporting that deal?

If Sanchez wins the Cy Young? Going to Extremes with prospects now are we? I think Arizona's does. They were not a World series team last year but risked prospects for next year to win big. Isn't that the point of playing in the Majors to win it all?


We aren't a team one piece away from a championship though. We have a loooong way to go.

Neither is Arizona.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 04:32 PM
Those examples proved nothing. We still haven't witnessed what those deals have done for their respective teams.

If Detroit misses the playoffs and Sanchez wins the Cy Young next season, will you still be supporting that deal?

Well, Detroit won't miss the playoffs because of what Sheffield doesn't do.

And Sanchez won't win the Cy Young. Again, he'll likely not help their MLB team at all.

No need to look at it in those extreme terms though.

The likely thing is that Sheffield helps Detroit. The likely thing is that Sanchez doesn't amount to much at the major league level.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 04:38 PM
Well, Detroit won't miss the playoffs because of what Sheffield doesn't do.

And Sanchez won't win the Cy Young. Again, he'll likely not help their MLB team at all.

No need to look at it in those extreme terms though.

The likely thing is that Sheffield helps Detroit. The likely thing is that Sanchez doesn't amount to much at the major league level.

And Bailey is far better of a prospect than Sanchez. You guys are severely underestimating Bailey's chances and his value IMO.

Jennings may help us get to 85 wins this season, but probably not the playoffs, and then we are basically left with nothing since we put all of our eggs in one basket, and it aint Easter.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 04:40 PM
And Bailey is far better of a prospect than Sanchez. You guys are severely underestimating Bailey's chances and his value IMO.

Jennings may help us get to 85 wins this season, but probably not the playoffs, and then we are basically left with nothing since we put all of our eggs in one basket, and it aint Easter.

Keeping Bailey is keeping all your eggs in one basket--just in a different colored basket.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 04:43 PM
If Sanchez wins the Cy Young? Going to Extremes with prospects now are we? I think Arizona's does. They were not a World series team last year but risked prospects for next year to win big. Isn't that the point of playing in the Majors to win it all?



The point of the big leagues is to put your best team on the field. What Arizona and Detroit have done is put their best team on the field for this season, but have hurt their future chances. I'm not going to argue if thoe trades helped those particular teams, because quite frankly, that's not the point.

However, i am confident that bailey has far more trade value than Jennings, especially to a team like the Reds. Our window is beyond this season, and trading for Jennings may help for this season, but i may very well shut the window for upcoming seasons. With harang and Arroyo locked up for 4 seasons, the Reds best chance of competing is waiting for Bailey to join them at the top of the rotation and try to fill in the rest of the gaps.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 04:44 PM
And Bailey is far better of a prospect than Sanchez. You guys are severely underestimating Bailey's chances and his value IMO.

Jennings may help us get to 85 wins this season, but probably not the playoffs, and then we are basically left with nothing since we put all of our eggs in one basket, and it aint Easter.

I am not underestimating either. He's unproven, untested and still very raw. As of right now, Bailey is a Double A pitcher going to Triple A. Thats all. He's not my hero, He's not the next coming of Christ. He is another lizard in the lizard kingdom. When he comes to the majors, throws the Reds a few good quality starts. I'll call him a Major Leaguer till then he is a 50% chance that he will be a Number 1 or a Number 5.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 04:44 PM
Keeping Bailey is keeping all your eggs in one basket--just in a different colored basket.

Metaphorically speaking, the basket was this season with Jennings, while Bailey creates a chance for contention in multiple seasons.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 04:49 PM
The point of the big leagues is to put your best team on the field. What Arizona and Detroit have done is put their best team on the field for this season, but have hurt their future chances. I'm not going to argue if thoe trades helped those particular teams, because quite frankly, that's not the point..

Detriot didnt hurt anything.
Miner
Tata
Miller
Verlander
Bonderman
Zumaya
Maroth
Ledzema

The list goes on and on and on..
---------
And we have Bailey who's "MLB" ready.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 04:51 PM
I am not underestimating either. He's unproven, untested and still very raw. As of right now, Bailey is a Double A pitcher going to Triple A. Thats all. He's not my hero, He's not the next coming of Christ. He is another lizard in the lizard kingdom. When he comes to the majors, throws the Reds a few good quality starts. I'll call him a Major Leaguer till then he is a 50% chance that he will be a Number 1 or a Number 5.

Bailey's trade value is clearly more than jennings.

Look at what he fetched. A far inferior pitching prospect and 2 crappy pieces.

That's not even close to what it takes to get a blue chip pitching prospect.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 04:58 PM
Bailey's trade value is clearly more than jennings.

Look at what he fetched. A far inferior pitching prospect and 2 crappy pieces.

That's not even close to what it takes to get a blue chip pitching prospect.

See thats where I differ from you guys with pitching prospects to Major League pitchers. Prospects are Projections, always a risk. Inferior or Superior to their Major League Counterparts. Major leaguers are what they are, and you know what you are getting.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 05:07 PM
See thats where I differ from you guys with pitching prospects to Major League pitchers. Prospects are Projections, always a risk. Inferior or Superior to their Major League Counterparts. Major leaguers are what they are, and you know what you are getting.

You may have me sold if Jennings was signed for 3 years at a reasonable rate, but as it stands now, it makes no sense to mortgage the future for only 1 season where contention may be asking far too much.

dougdirt
03-25-2007, 05:11 PM
this thread makes me :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Tom Servo
03-25-2007, 05:16 PM
Something about Bubba Crosby always lead to big, non-Bubba debates...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52457&highlight=Bubba+Crosby

PuffyPig
03-25-2007, 05:21 PM
I don't expect much out of Bailey. I really don't care much one way or another about him.

When a Reds fan says that he doesn't care one way or the other of the best Reds pitchiing prospect in many, many years, and one who's currently rated the #2 pitching prospect in the majors, I must say I am very :confused:

PuffyPig
03-25-2007, 05:31 PM
I don't think Reyes is a stud. I've never said that.

You've said he's a solid #3 starter right now, notwithstanding that he's had zero major league success.

I'd say you have a bad case of "Bucky-Love" for him at the very least.

jojo
03-25-2007, 05:40 PM
I'm not making them up. No one is immune to injury and the vast, vast majority of minor league players (pitchers and hitters) never get a whiff of the majors.

Surely you're not going to argue that a majority of the minor league arms in all the systems of all the teams get at least one MLB start. Surely you're not suggesting that.

It's MOST likely that Homer Bailey will never start a MLB game. That is a fact if you base it on history. Is Bailey slightly more LIKELY to make it than a lot of other arms? Yes, marginally. But he's a AA pitcher; if he were a pitcher with more experience at AAA, and has proven he can handle the rigors of full season of starts, I might be leaning towards the "likely" prognosis. But that's not the case; it's LIKELY he'll never start a game in the majors.

Alright lets look at this from the standpoint that Pecota does because that system generates a list of historical comparables based upon a host of criteria that can be summed as:1) production metrics (both major league, and minor league/college), 2) usage metrics, and 3) "phenotypic" traits (i.e. handedness, stature etc). The career paths of these most similar guys are then used to project a player's future performance. Lets ignore the the actual projected numbers and just focus on Homer's list of comparables and see what their career paths have to say about the likely path Homer will take. Here are the top 20 for him:

Rank Pitcher Year
1 EDWIN JACKSON 2004
2 JAKE PEAVY 2002
3 RICH HARDEN 2003
4 C.BILLINGSLEY 2005
5 B.HAWKSWORTH 2004
6 SCOTT KAZMIR 2005
7 SCOTT OLSEN 2005
8 CLINT EVERTS 2005
9 W. RODRIGUEZ 2000
10 JOHN PATTERSON 1999
11 BRAD PENNY 1999
12 GIO GONZALEZ 2006
13 T.BLACKLEY 2004
14 C. ZAMBRANO 2002
15 TYLER CLIPPARD 2006
16 WES ANDERSON 2000
17 F.CABRERA 2003
18 MATT CAIN 2005
19 MATT RILEY 2000
20 J. WILLIAMS 2003

The six underlined guys all had their EqA's increase by at least 20% from their previous baseline (that's a bad thing).

So out of his list of comparables (i.e. guys with similar traits and similar stats), only 6 were behaving like a guy thats likely to collapse. These guys-Peavey, Harden, Billingsley, Kazmir, Olsen, Patterson, Penny, Zambrano, and Cain -have not only started more than 1 game, they have all put up numbers that are significantly better than league average as starters.

So really, if history is an indicator (and the database used to compile this list includes players back to the WWII era), the list of guys most similar to Bailey suggests it's most likely that he'll become a quality starter at the major league level and the least likely outcome for him would be that he'll never start a game in the major leagues.....

fearofpopvol1
03-25-2007, 05:42 PM
I hope this thread is bookmarked and revisited later in the season or next season for that matter.

redsmetz
03-25-2007, 05:48 PM
I don't think Reyes is a stud. I've never said that. And I've never said Bailey sucks.

Not to belabor the point, but you more or less intimated that the likelihood of Bailey working out wasn't that great. That was an astonishing statement. I'll grant any prospect is a question mark until they prove otherwise, but he's got significantly more upside than down. Something we haven't had in a minor league pitcher in eons.

jojo
03-25-2007, 05:57 PM
True enough. And who's to say the rest of the team won't be in shambles by the time Bailey arrives?

Well yes, I guess the team plane could crash or there could be a historic rash of injuries.... but you're ignoring context. Good organisations don't continually grab for the moment because they can't predict the future. They plan according to what they reasonably believe is the most likely future. The current Reds team isn't starting from scratch....they've actually got a decent young core staring back at them from the future....

The Reds have 2/5 of their rotation locked up for several years. Bray and Coffey look to be the cornerstone of the bullpen. 3/4 of their infield will be EE, Votto, and Phillips with Gonzo being rented. They're hoping for Hamilton to sprout, and seem to have an excellent OF prospect climbing the ladder. However, those locked up starters are going to get big raises. The Reds will undoubtedly need serious jack to keep Dunn. Simply put, in the context of their most likely future, the Reds can't afford to try and replace the starter that Homer projects to be with a Jennings every year.

The best teams are a mixture of in house developed talent, trades and free agents. That in house talent helps facilitate trades but importantly, its the cheap first 6 years of that in house talent that helps a team be able to afford the free agents and the in-season pickups....

jojo
03-25-2007, 06:06 PM
It's not like Bailey is light years away....by all accounts a late arrival for him would be the middle of '08.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 06:36 PM
Well yes, I guess the team plane could crash or there could be a historic rash of injuries.... but you're ignoring context. Good organisations don't continually grab for the moment because they can't predict the future. They plan according to what they reasonably believe is the most likely future. The current Reds team isn't starting from scratch....they've actually got a decent young core staring back at them from the future....

The Reds have 2/5 of their rotation locked up for several years. Bray and Coffey look to be the cornerstone of the bullpen. 3/4 of their infield will be EE, Votto, and Phillips with Gonzo being rented. They're hoping for Hamilton to sprout, and seem to have an excellent OF prospect climbing the ladder. However, those locked up starters are going to get big raises. The Reds will undoubtedly need serious jack to keep Dunn. Simply put, in the context of their most likely future, the Reds can't afford to try and replace the starter that Homer projects to be with a Jennings every year.

The best teams are a mixture of in house developed talent, trades and free agents. That in house talent helps facilitate trades but importantly, its the cheap first 6 years of that in house talent that helps a team be able to afford the free agents and the in-season pickups....

You act as though I'm recommending a wholesale purge of the Reds' minor league system, or that I'd make the Bailey trade in any and every season. You are ignoring context. I happen to believe that THIS YEAR the Central is winnable; I think going for it matters. The Reds could survive the loss of Bailey; I'm not sure how many more sub-.500 teams the fan base can endure however.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 06:38 PM
Well yes, I guess the team plane could crash or there could be a historic rash of injuries.... but you're ignoring context. Good organisations don't continually grab for the moment because they can't predict the future. They plan according to what they reasonably believe is the most likely future. The current Reds team isn't starting from scratch....they've actually got a decent young core staring back at them from the future....

The Reds have 2/5 of their rotation locked up for several years. Bray and Coffey look to be the cornerstone of the bullpen. 3/4 of their infield will be EE, Votto, and Phillips with Gonzo being rented. They're hoping for Hamilton to sprout, and seem to have an excellent OF prospect climbing the ladder. However, those locked up starters are going to get big raises. The Reds will undoubtedly need serious jack to keep Dunn. Simply put, in the context of their most likely future, the Reds can't afford to try and replace the starter that Homer projects to be with a Jennings every year.

The best teams are a mixture of in house developed talent, trades and free agents. That in house talent helps facilitate trades but importantly, its the cheap first 6 years of that in house talent that helps a team be able to afford the free agents and the in-season pickups....

Bray is a cornerstone?

Come on. And I like Coffey, but he's a setup man, a Braden Looper if you will. Valuable, but not a cornerstone.

Scott Sullivan was a cornerstone.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 06:39 PM
Alright lets look at this from the standpoint that Pecota does because that system generates a list of historical comparables based upon a host of criteria that can be summed as:1) production metrics (both major league, and minor league/college), 2) usage metrics, and 3) "phenotypic" traits (i.e. handedness, stature etc). The career paths of these most similar guys are then used to project a player's future performance. Lets ignore the the actual projected numbers and just focus on Homer's list of comparables and see what their career paths have to say about the likely path Homer will take. Here are the top 20 for him:

Rank Pitcher Year
1 EDWIN JACKSON 2004
2 JAKE PEAVY 2002
3 RICH HARDEN 2003
4 C.BILLINGSLEY 2005
5 B.HAWKSWORTH 2004
6 SCOTT KAZMIR 2005
7 SCOTT OLSEN 2005
8 CLINT EVERTS 2005
9 W. RODRIGUEZ 2000
10 JOHN PATTERSON 1999
11 BRAD PENNY 1999
12 GIO GONZALEZ 2006
13 T.BLACKLEY 2004
14 C. ZAMBRANO 2002
15 TYLER CLIPPARD 2006
16 WES ANDERSON 2000
17 F.CABRERA 2003
18 MATT CAIN 2005
19 MATT RILEY 2000
20 J. WILLIAMS 2003

The six underlined guys all had their EqA's increase by at least 20% from their previous baseline (that's a bad thing).

So out of his list of comparables (i.e. guys with similar traits and similar stats), only 6 were behaving like a guy thats likely to collapse. These guys-Peavey, Harden, Billingsley, Kazmir, Olsen, Patterson, Penny, Zambrano, and Cain -have not only started more than 1 game, they have all put up numbers that are significantly better than league average as starters.

So really, if history is an indicator (and the database used to compile this list includes players back to the WWII era), the list of guys most similar to Bailey suggests it's most likely that he'll become a quality starter at the major league level and the least likely outcome for him would be that he'll never start a game in the major leagues.....

Chad Billingsley threw 90 innings of sub-average ball in the best park in the majors for pitchers.

And while Patterson's 2005 was great, the rest of his injury-riddled career has been nothing short of a trainwreck. And Harden's a walking MASH unit as well.

You're not exactly disproving my point, I'm afraid.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 06:47 PM
You've said he's a solid #3 starter right now, notwithstanding that he's had zero major league success.
.
That's just not true. Anthony Reyes has had major league success. He's not great, but he overcame a pretty big hurdle last season; something to build on.

jojo
03-25-2007, 06:48 PM
Chad Billingsley threw 90 innings of sub-average ball in the best park in the majors for pitchers.

And while Patterson's 2005 was great, the rest of his injury-riddled career has been nothing short of a trainwreck. And Harden's a walking MASH unit as well.

You're not exactly disproving my point, I'm afraid.

Of course you don't think so.... but your actual point was that it's most likely that Homer won't even start a game in the majors.... his list of comparables is a pretty compelling argument refuting that assertion...

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 06:50 PM
Of course you don't think so.... but your actual point was that it's most likely that Homer won't even start a game in the majors.... his list of comparables is a pretty compelling argument refuting that assertion...

A number of posts back I retracted the "he won't start one game in the majors" notion. The terms do keep switching.

The point is, for me, that it's dangerous to put so much weight behind potential and what it might bring. It's not an awful thing to have solid if unremarkable reliable pitchers on your staff. There's really something to be said for reliability and health.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 06:53 PM
It's not like Bailey is light years away....by all accounts a late arrival for him would be the middle of '08.

I've been accused of taking shots in the dark on this thread, but this is the dark-shot of all dark-shots.

He's 21. He has 60 very good AA innings under his belt and 100+ very mediocre A innings. How on earth can you say with any kind of certainty that he'll be ready by mid-2008? He looked like a high school kid in spring training.

jojo
03-25-2007, 07:05 PM
You act as though I'm recommending a wholesale purge of the Reds' minor league system, or that I'd make the Bailey trade in any and every season. You are ignoring context.

No....we're specifically talking about Homer. I'm arguing that the Reds are better off keeping Bailey given their most likely future.....


I happen to believe that THIS YEAR the Central is winnable; I think going for it matters.

I agree.


The Reds could survive the loss of Bailey

This is only true if he can't take the final step. Obviously, no one knows with 100% certainty whether or not he will. However, there are compelling arguments which suggest the greatest likelihood is that he will develop into a major league starter. The fact that you're unmoved by them doesn't mean your basic premise isn't begging the question.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 07:08 PM
No....we're specifically talking about Homer. I'm arguing that the Reds are better off keeping Bailey given their most likely future.....



I agree.



This is only true if he can't take the final step. Obviously, no one knows with 100% certainty whether or not he will. However, there are compelling arguments which suggest the greatest likelihood is that he will develop into a major league starter. The fact that you're unmoved by them doesn't mean your basic premise isn't begging the question.

No, this is true no matter what. And I believe your methodology not to be compelling; that isn't proof.

dougdirt
03-25-2007, 07:08 PM
I've been accused of taking shots in the dark on this thread, but this is the dark-shot of all dark-shots.

He's 21. He has 60 very good AA innings under his belt and 100+ very mediocre A innings. How on earth can you say with any kind of certainty that he'll be ready by mid-2008? He looked like a high school kid in spring training.

Yeah, and so did the guy you said was MLB ready in Phil Hughes who posted an ERA over 9.00. Second of all, lets note that Bailey is still infact 20 years old. Now, as far as Bailey having 100 + mediocre innings in Aball, then yeah, he had 103.2 mediocre innings in Dayton if you want to look at ERA. But his hit and strikeout rates were both VERY good at that level. However, what he did in Sarasota was above average innings. 70 innings, 49 hits, 79 strikeouts. What on earth is "average" about those innings? So in hindsight, he has 103 mediocre innings as a 19 year old, and 138 very good innings as a 20 year old in A+ and AA. You act as if he has 500 minor league innings and all of a sudden he had a very good 70 innings. Fact of the matter is, Bailey has 254 minor league innings, and 140 of them at VERY good.

dougdirt
03-25-2007, 07:15 PM
No, this is true no matter what. And I believe your methodology not to be compelling; that isn't proof.

The Reds would be stupid to trade Bailey for someone the likes of Jennings on a 1 year contract. It would be beyond ridiculous. It would be Scott Kazmir all over again.... except in our own back yard. There are things trending in Baileys direction that suggest he will make that final step. 1, he significantly improved all of his numbers across the board as he rose to 2 higher levels. Those show that he is indeed improving, and not just staying stagnant. Is he a finished product right now? of course not. No one is at that age outside of maybe Dwight Gooden. However, there is no reason to toss him aside for 1 years worth of service and a "chance" to win the division. If the Reds are 2 games back in late July, you look at trading prospects for guys. You don't do it at the start of the season though, and you surely don't do it with the top pitching prospect in baseball.

jojo
03-25-2007, 07:36 PM
No, this is true no matter what.

Only if you're referring to the next 5 months AND you're assuming he can't contribute to the Reds this season AND you don't have to worry the health of your organisation for the long haul.... So no it's not true no matter what....it isn't even necessarily true for '07.


And I believe your methodology not to be compelling; that isn't proof.

It wasn't offered as proof but rather as a prediction based upon proven methodology...

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 08:02 PM
So the Reds will implode if they trade Bailey? He's one prospect. One arm.

The Reds will survive him, dead or alive.

By the end of this year, Bailey may get passed on the depth chart by a guy like Cueto....and it really wouldn't be a surprise. Why? Because Bailey is young and far away from the majors. Because projecting pitchers is a complete and total crapshoot. Because of Murphy's Law. It's fundamentally absurd to be as arrogantly sure of Bailey's future success as some of you are.

flyer85
03-25-2007, 08:09 PM
I was kind of hoping the pissing matches over Bailey would come to an end. He starting the season in AAA and is very unlikely to be traded in the near future. It is what it is at the moment.

I'm more interested in if the Reds would really bite the bullet and chuck Milton overboard. The 2005 and 2006 seasons are the real Milton. It isn't going to get any better and the Reds only are hurting their chances every time they send him out there. It is obvious to everyone, now will the FO put their money where their mouth is.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 08:13 PM
I was kind of hoping the pissing matches over Bailey would come to an end. He starting the season in AAA and is very unlikely to be traded in the near future. It is what it is at the moment.
.

I think what the Reds do with their minor leaguers to improve their MLB team is important.

But you're probably right; it doesn't matter. But really, the same could be said for Milton--it's been obvious for three years that they should demote or cut Milton, but it's not happened. I'm guessing it won't happen this year. And even if they do, it's not going to help this team that much. They don't have anyone to take his place in the rotation.

What's germane is that the team needs more starters; that's my point in even raising the spectre of Bailey.

flyer85
03-25-2007, 08:22 PM
Iit's been obvious for three years that they should demote or cut Milton, but it's not happened. I'm guessing it won't happen this year. And even if they do, it's not going to help this team that much. They don't have anyone to take his place in the rotation.
We have heard for the last year that money issues are not as big a deal anymore. Honestly with Livingston, Ramirez, And Belisle they can replace Milton and these guys at least have some upside, with Milton there is none.

The $9M is a sunk cost and this spring has made it obvious that hoping that the Milton with a 94 mph fastball and a biting curve is gone and is not coming back.

There was no way OB would have gotten rid of Milton and I could see giving him the 2006 season to see if anything was left. Now after the knee surgery, elbow surgery and spring training it is certain that the "talented" Eric Milton is dead. Only the gopherball king is left.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 08:32 PM
I made the comment about Hughes. I think Hughes could help the Yankees this season, faster than Bailey can help the Reds. I also think that it's been now made point that Bailey is the clear-cut hero of the Reds when he is most likely not but rather a piece of what needs to take place.


Harang
Arroyo
Bailey
Insert Pitcher
Insert Pitcher.

Thats what our staff is going to resemble. It's getting old hearing how Bailey will automatically coming in and play the hero/when the cy young. Bailey can win the Cy Young but if the team around him can not win the games then whats the point? He becomes moot.

Bailey is a piece to the Reds puzzle. He's either going to be a big piece of the puzzle or he's going to be fizzle ut. Whats the point either way?

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 08:42 PM
Bailey is a piece to the Reds puzzle. He's either going to be a big piece of the puzzle or he's going to be fizzle ut. Whats the point either way?

Well the way we are set-up, we are basically one dynomite pitcher from being legit contenders. Bailey may not do it, but if he does, this team will be very good.

flyer85
03-25-2007, 08:42 PM
Heck look at the Yanks and all their money yet they still have a lot of questions about their starting rotation(supposedly Pavano may pitch opening day). Same even with the Red Sox, supposedly Julian Tavarez is going to be their 5th starter.

I just wish the Reds would be more willing to go with younger options when it obvious the old and expensive is not going to work out.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 08:45 PM
Heck look at the Yanks and all their money yet they still have a lot of questions about their starting rotation. Same even with the Red Sox, supposedly Julian Tavarez is going to be their 5th starter.

I just wish the Reds would be more willing to go with younger options when it obvious the old and expensive is not going to work out.

No doubt. There is nothing to gain with Milton. Every other option's upside is average starter, with downside of Milton. It can't hurt trying something else, and there are viable alternatives.

Krivsky has shown the willingness to take out the trash. I honestly think that Krivsky is holding Milton on a short leash. If he fails to perform over the 1st month, I think changes will be made.

flyer85
03-25-2007, 08:49 PM
Krivsky has shown the willingness to take out the trash. I honestly think that Krivsky is holding Milton on a short leash. If he fails to perform over the 1st month, I think changes will be made.I'm still hoping he'll leave the trash in Florida.

I could live with
SP Arroyo
SP Harang
SP Lohse
SP Belisle
SP Saarloos

RP Weathers
RP Stanton
RP Bray
RP Coffey
RP Burton
RP Hermanson
RP Santos

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 08:52 PM
I'm still hoping he'll leave the trash in Florida.

I could live with
SP Arroyo
SP Harang
SP Lohse
SP Belisle
SP Saarloos

RP Weathers
RP Stanton
RP Bray
RP Coffey
RP Burton
RP Hermanson
RP Santos

Ya, but I think that could be wishful thinking. Haven't they already guaranteed him a spot?

I'm just hoping Milton doesn't exist too far into the season. Your opening day staff looks ideal based on what is left in ST. Majewski would basically take Santos' slot, and as a whole the staff isn't so bad. There is a LOT of mediocrity, but the amount of black holes is limited which does help considerably.

flyer85
03-25-2007, 08:56 PM
Haven't they already guaranteed him a spot?if they have that is really stupid.


I'm just hoping Milton doesn't exist too far into the season.... for that to happen I would assume he would have to absorb 3-4 severe beatings which equate to losses. Reds can't afford to give that many away.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 08:57 PM
I just wish the Reds would be more willing to go with younger options when it obvious the old and expensive is not going to work out.

I wanted to cash alot of our players in for younger pitching and I thought the way to go was even taking flyers on players that weren't starting. I was told this year wasn't the year we were so close! We could win it all!

Now it's starting to show that both Loshe and Milton, are sucking even worse than we thought. The problem is, we are still saddled with Milton and due to the "well he could get better" train of though Loshe as well.

Loshe should have been cut. Milton given his release; his money was sunk for three years anyway.

reds44
03-25-2007, 08:57 PM
FCB:

The main point of your argument seems to be losing Bailey wouldn't kill the Reds right now. While you are correct, the question goes deeper then that.

We all like Homer Bailey, but in reality he is just a prospect. He's a great prospect, but nothing is guarnteed. The truth is, there is probably just as good of a chance he will flame out then he will become the next great thing.

Do you think Jennings is worth the risk of Homer becoming the next great thing? If you do, then you make the trade, if you don't then you don't.

I personally think you can get alot more for Homer then Jennings, but everybody has there own opinon.

I'm not against trading Homer, but I'd want more then Jennings.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 08:59 PM
I'm still hoping he'll leave the trash in Florida.

I could live with
SP Arroyo
SP Harang
SP Lohse
SP Belisle
SP Saarloos

RP Weathers
RP Stanton
RP Bray
RP Coffey
RP Burton
RP Hermanson
RP Santos


One black hole in the rotation in Lohse, and two in the bullpen in Santos and Hermanson. Neither of which I expect to stay on this team any longer than a few months.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 09:00 PM
if they have that is really stupid.

... for that to happen I would assume he would have to absorb 3-4 severe beatings which equate to losses. Reds can't afford to give that many away.

You are right it is stupid. Milton obviously has no place on a major league ballclub except for maybe Washington.

Face it, the Reds are going to be giving away wins with Milton in the rotation either way, so we may as well absorb them quickly, so the team can imrpove fast enough to still have a decent shot.

And I don't think he neccessarily has to get creamed every time. He just needs to show that he wont improve with his usual "stuff" and velocity, and post the usual 5+ ERA. As long as both Saarloos and Belisle can keep pitching well, I think Krivsky will be willing to make the right move.

flyer85
03-25-2007, 09:05 PM
One black hole in the rotation in Lohse,I am not quite ready to give up on Lohse. He has "the stuff" if he could put it together. In addition his BPIs were considerably better after to coming to the Reds. He isn't going to be a stud but the Reds just need some 4.5 ERA types at the back of the rotation, just stay away from the Miltons and over 5 ERAs.

Hermanson is likely to break down before he does any real damage and I actually like Santos in the long relief role. The 12th pitcher on your staff isn't going to kill you even if he sucks.

Caveat Emperor
03-25-2007, 09:10 PM
The Reds could survive the loss of Bailey; I'm not sure how many more sub-.500 teams the fan base can endure however.

The Reds can survive the loss of Bailey, but having a stud young pitcher is always preferable to not having a stud young pitcher.

There isn't any player in the minors that is a sure thing -- but you'll never realize the fruits of player development if you don't take a chance on a few of the guys to completely develop along the way. The Tigers -- bastion of all things awful for the better part of 2 decades -- wouldn't be the same team today if they'd gotten gunshy on guys like Verlander and Zumaya.

And, its not like the baseball fan base in this town is going anywhere. Sustained winning will bring as many Reds fans as needed out of the woodwork.

dougdirt
03-25-2007, 09:27 PM
So the Reds will implode if they trade Bailey? He's one prospect. One arm.

The Reds will survive him, dead or alive.

By the end of this year, Bailey may get passed on the depth chart by a guy like Cueto....and it really wouldn't be a surprise. Why? Because Bailey is young and far away from the majors. Because projecting pitchers is a complete and total crapshoot. Because of Murphy's Law. It's fundamentally absurd to be as arrogantly sure of Bailey's future success as some of you are.

Bailey is far from the majors? Last I checked, Louisville is about as close to the majors as you can get.

By all projection systems Jennings is going to give you a 4.00-4.50 ERA with 130 strikeouts and 185 innings.

Same projection systems have Bailey at 4.50-4.90 ERA with 104 strikeouts in 115 innings.

Now while you don't have to take projection systems for any worth at all, they take into account things that very similar pitches with similar stats at similar ages. Now for a second lets take them for entertainment purposes only, the difference between those two pitchers is ridiculously marginal at best. To trade them for eachother seems a decent idea.... until you take into thought that one guy is leaving in 1 season and is about to enter his 30s while one guy will be 21 all season and under your control for 5 years after he puts up those numbers.

jojo
03-25-2007, 09:47 PM
So the Reds will implode if they trade Bailey?

Who's arguing that?


He's one prospect. One arm.

Not exactly. He's an elite prospect thought by a great many to be one of the best in baseball. In other words, he has a extremely high ceiling so no he isn't just one prospect. He's the type of prospect that only a minority of teams currently have in their system.


By the end of this year, Bailey may get passed on the depth chart by a guy like Cueto....and it really wouldn't be a surprise.

It might not surprise you but a great deal of people in the industry would likely be closer to shocked than surprised by that..... Homer is projected to be a #1/#2 arm in the rotation. Cueto's upside is generally thought to be as an effective bullpen arm. Based upon his size few people believe Cueto can withstand the rigours of starting despite his command and power.


Why? Because Bailey is young and far away from the majors. Because projecting pitchers is a complete and total crapshoot. Because of Murphy's Law. It's fundamentally absurd to be as arrogantly sure of Bailey's future success as some of you are.

First, while I can't speak for others, my opinion has been informed by those of people involved in his development, analysis of his peripherals and by projections derived from proven methodology. I've concluded that its more likely that Homer will develop into a major league starter than he'll not. That's hardly arrogant assurance. It's not even proclaiming the future with anywhere near certainty. I don't have any inside information but it's a reasonable risk assessment based upon the best available info I could find.

Second, I'm struggling to find any industry opinion that agrees with your assessment that Homer is "far away" from the majors.

Uncertainty really isn't a good argument against Bailey. Far from being fundamentally absurd, not trading Homer at this point, while assuming risk (is there a decision that doesn't assume risk in mlb?), is actually assuming a good kind of risk based upon his high ceiling and low paycheck.

Look, I understand you've calculated that the Reds have a chance at the central this season and philosophically you believe they should choose the now. But that approach assumes a ton of risk too with potential repercussions that could dramatically effect their payroll for the next five years. Murphy's law is more than a cliche, it's essentially a design philosophy that argues for minimizing risk. Framing the debate in terms of the '07 season artificially imposes a time table for Homer's development that leads to an overstatement of the risk associated with his development and an underestimate of the risk associated with trading him. There are enough questions concerning the Reds ability to challenge for the central this season that trading Homer based upon the assertion that the Reds can win it seems to me to be based upon unreasonable confidence in their short term prospects....

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 10:02 PM
Heck look at the Yanks and all their money yet they still have a lot of questions about their starting rotation(supposedly Pavano may pitch opening day). Same even with the Red Sox, supposedly Julian Tavarez is going to be their 5th starter.

I just wish the Reds would be more willing to go with younger options when it obvious the old and expensive is not going to work out.

Julian Tavarez would be the Reds' #3. He has every chance in the world to be as good as if not better than Lohse. He's been so in the past.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 10:03 PM
Bailey is far from the majors? Last I checked, Louisville is about as close to the majors as you can get.

By all projection systems Jennings is going to give you a 4.00-4.50 ERA with 130 strikeouts and 185 innings.

Same projection systems have Bailey at 4.50-4.90 ERA with 104 strikeouts in 115 innings.

Now while you don't have to take projection systems for any worth at all, they take into account things that very similar pitches with similar stats at similar ages. Now for a second lets take them for entertainment purposes only, the difference between those two pitchers is ridiculously marginal at best. To trade them for eachother seems a decent idea.... until you take into thought that one guy is leaving in 1 season and is about to enter his 30s while one guy will be 21 all season and under your control for 5 years after he puts up those numbers.

How many innings has Bailey thrown at Louisville again?

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 10:04 PM
Who's arguing that?



Not exactly. He's an elite prospect thought by a great many to be one of the best in baseball. In other words, he has a extremely high ceiling so no he isn't just one prospect. He's the type of prospect that only a minority of teams currently have in their system.



It might not surprise you but a great deal of people in the industry would likely be closer to shocked than surprised by that..... Homer is projected to be a #1/#2 arm in the rotation. Cueto's upside is generally thought to be as an effective bullpen arm. Based upon his size few people believe Cueto can withstand the rigours of starting despite his command and power.



First, while I can't speak for others, my opinion has been informed by those of people involved in his development, analysis of his peripherals and by projections derived from proven methodology. I've concluded that its more likely that Homer will develop into a major league starter than he'll not. That's hardly arrogant assurance. It's not even proclaiming the future with anywhere near certainty. I don't have any inside information but it's a reasonable risk assessment based upon the best available info I could find.

Second, I'm struggling to find any industry opinion that agrees with your assessment that Homer is "far away" from the majors.

Uncertainty really isn't a good argument against Bailey. Far from being fundamentally absurd, not trading Homer at this point, while assuming risk (is there a decision that doesn't assume risk in mlb?), is actually assuming a good kind of risk based upon his high ceiling and low paycheck.

Look, I understand you've calculated that the Reds have a chance at the central this season and philosophically you believe they should choose the now. But that approach assumes a ton of risk too with potential repercussions that could dramatically effect their payroll for the next five years. Murphy's law is more than a cliche, it's essentially a design philosophy that argues for minimizing risk. Framing the debate in terms of the '07 season artificially imposes a time table for Homer's development that leads to an overstatement of the risk associated with his development and an underestimate of the risk associated with trading him. There are enough questions concerning the Reds ability to challenge for the central this season that trading Homer based upon the assertion that the Reds can win it seems to me to be based upon unreasonable confidence in their short term prospects....

We've been on this merry-go-round before: pitching projections are useless.

Offense, no. Pitching: useless.

And Bailey really IS just one human being: he isn't going to bud, replicate, or clone himself. He's one person. There will be others.

I am curious; what is your strategy if Homer tears his rotator cuff, thus ending his career for all intents and purposes? What is your next suggestion for acquiring MLB caliber players? My guess is: wait? FA? Cling to Cueto for dear life? Trade Bruce (who I believe should be untradeable--he's a lot less volatile)?

pedro
03-25-2007, 10:10 PM
Julian Tavarez would be the Reds' #3. He has every chance in the world to be as good as if not better than Lohse. He's been so in the past.

Julian Taverez hasn't started a game since 2002. A year in which his ERA was 5.39 while pitching half his games in Florida, which is a great park for pitchers. That year on the road, hitters hit .344 off him.

Taverez is a fairly decent pitcher. One who'd be a decent addition to the Reds bullpen but IMO Belisle, Saarloos, Lohse, and maybe Livingston are all better starting candidates than he is.

Patrick Bateman
03-25-2007, 10:12 PM
We've been on this merry-go-round before: pitching projections are useless.

Offense, no. Pitching: useless.

Useless?

Unreliable, yes, but they can definitely be used to complement things like scouting reports.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 10:12 PM
I'm still hoping he'll leave the trash in Florida.

I could live with
SP Arroyo
SP Harang
SP Lohse
SP Belisle
SP Saarloos

RP Weathers
RP Stanton
RP Bray
RP Coffey
RP Burton
RP Hermanson
RP Santos

I suspect you'll "live," but the Reds will still suck with that pitching lineup.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 10:13 PM
Useless?

Unreliable, yes, but they can definitely be used to complement things like scouting reports.

They can help project MLB performance of pre-existing MLB pitchers to some extent. But they're pointless when projecting minors to majors performance.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2007, 10:24 PM
And, its not like the baseball fan base in this town is going anywhere. Sustained winning will bring as many Reds fans as needed out of the woodwork.

Teams move. It wouldn't be impossible for the Reds to leave Cincinnati. Not likely, but not impossible.

blumj
03-25-2007, 10:43 PM
Julian Taverez hasn't started a game since 2002. A year in which his ERA was 5.39 while pitching half his games in Florida, which is a great park for pitchers. That year on the road, hitters hit .344 off him.

Taverez is a fairly decent pitcher. One who'd be a decent addition to the Reds bullpen but IMO Belisle, Saarloos, Lohse, and maybe Livingston are all better starting candidates than he is.
Tavarez started 6 games last year, and for some reason, he was reasonably effective in those starts, but, yeah, I'd take any of those guys over him. I'd also take a few guys the Sox have and aren't starting over him, either, but they didn't ask my opinion.

pedro
03-25-2007, 10:47 PM
Tavarez started 6 games last year, and for some reason, he was reasonably effective in those starts, but, yeah, I'd take any of those guys over him. I'd also take a few guys the Sox have and aren't starting over him, either, but they didn't ask my opinion.


I missed that. You're right he did OK in those starts, but I wouldn't expect much out of him as a starter regardless, it was only 35 innings.

jojo
03-25-2007, 10:50 PM
We've been on this merry-go-round before: pitching projections are useless.

Offense, no. Pitching: useless.

Actually no we haven't..... it's true that pitching projections aren't as accurate as offensive projections (meaning that pitcher projections have a lower correlation to actual performance than a projection for position players). Basically the correlations for the various projection systems for pitchers was roughly .50 in 2006. While less than ideal, pitcher projections are still useful. Don't mistakenly interpret a correlation of .50 as a flip of a coin. Predicting pitcher performance is not a binary endgame and a correlation of .50 is highly significant. That's an important distinction. Cancer therapies have been approved by the FDA based upon correlations that were much lower. Importantly, projection systems like Pecota can accurately predict the rise and decline phase of a pitcher's career even if they are hazier on the specifics. So really your criticism dramatically overstates the issues with projection system accuracy and in the context of this discussion isn't valid anyway. The Pecota list of comparables was offered as a model of Homer's potential for success not a specific prediction of his counting stats.

Besides, it's not like that was the whole crux of the argument.....

DoogMinAmo
03-25-2007, 10:53 PM
Teams move. It wouldn't be impossible for the Reds to leave Cincinnati. Not likely, but not impossible.

Wow, just wow. Sometimes FCB I wonder if you are striving for shock and awe, or really do whole-heartedly believe what you type.

But I will bite anyway; you make the arguement that Bailey is an uncertain commodity, but if we were to provide a certainty to it, in both degrees, what is your stance? I realize it is a far cry from the predominantly factual arguements that occur on this board, but I enjoy occasional hypotheticals, especially if they challenge one's stance:

You have a guaranteed playoff appearance in 2007 without Bailey, and that is it.

Bailey makes it to the majors and fullfills his destiny without hitch with another team.

Is the trade still worth it?

pedro
03-25-2007, 10:55 PM
Actually no we haven't..... it's true that pitching projections aren't as accurate as offensive projections (meaning that pitcher projections have a lower correlation to actual performance than a projection for position players). Basically the correlations for the various projection systems for pitchers was roughly .50 in 2006. While less than ideal, pitcher projections are still useful. Don't mistakenly interpret a correlation of .50 as a flip of a coin. Predicting pitcher performance is not a binary endgame and a correlation of .50 is highly significant. That's an important distinction. Cancer therapies have been approved by the FDA based upon correlations that were much lower. Importantly, projection systems like Pecota can accurately predict the rise and decline phase of a pitcher's career even if they are hazier on the specifics. So really your criticism dramatically overstates the issues with projection system accuracy and in the context of this discussion isn't valid anyway. The Pecota list of comparables was offered as a model of Homer's potential for success not a specific prediction of his counting stats.

Besides, it's not like that was the whole crux of the argument.....

You said "Binary Endgame"

hehe

http://www.blasting-zone.com/Beavis%20And%20Butthead_Pic_4.gif

jojo
03-25-2007, 10:57 PM
They can help project MLB performance of pre-existing MLB pitchers to some extent. But they're pointless when projecting minors to majors performance.

Thats another overstatement.... obviously predicting minor leaguers is more difficult for several reasons but difficult is different than pointless....

dougdirt
03-25-2007, 11:38 PM
How many innings has Bailey thrown at Louisville again?

I have no idea what that has anything to do with it being 1 small step from Cincinnati. If Bailey pitched 50 or 150 innings in Louisville, it is by no means FAR from Cincinnati. In fact, it is as close as you can get. You act as if he is starting the season in Dayton or something. That is FAR.
Heck, lets be honest. Lets look at a few other top pitching prospects over hte last few years.
Scott Kazmir pitched a grand total of 51 innings above A+ before he stepped onto the big leage mound for good. Now before you say he was "ready" let me remind you his control was not very good either. His minor league walk rate was 3.67 in the minors.
Cole Hamels threw all of 23 innings in AAA before getting to the big leauges. Minor league walk rate was 3.26.
Adam Loewen threw 21 innings in AAA before throwing 112 major league innings last year.
Zach Greinke threw 28 innings in AAA before making the majors.
Jeff Francis threw 41 innings in AAA before making the majors and sticking.
Chad Billingsley threw 70 innings in AAA before making the majors.

All of these guys were HS pitchers, with high upside, who threw very few innings in AAA before getting to the big leagues. My point is, AAA is hardly ever far from the big leagues for top prospects, especially pitchers.

Dracodave
03-25-2007, 11:48 PM
Scott Kazmir pitched a grand total of 51 innings above A+ before he stepped onto the big leage mound for good. Now before you say he was "ready" let me remind you his control was not very good either. His minor league walk rate was 3.67 in the minors.
Cole Hamels threw all of 23 innings in AAA before getting to the big leauges. Minor league walk rate was 3.26.
Adam Loewen threw 21 innings in AAA before throwing 112 major league innings last year.
Zach Greinke threw 28 innings in AAA before making the majors.
Jeff Francis threw 41 innings in AAA before making the majors and sticking.
Chad Billingsley threw 70 innings in AAA before making the majors.


Disclaimer - I'm not attacking you but the general mindset that the Reds are a world series team/play off team as we speak.

Tampa was never in the "race". Philly really had crappy starters. Baltimore needed help to just float. Colorado was sinking and still is. LA could afford to call him up.


You're dealing a Reds team that is too close to winning it all, to risk the chance to go with Bailey or any other young pitcher. Remember we could win it all..We have a decent fielding no hitting first baseman(both of them), a slick fielding no hit shortstop, a second baseman with question marks on offense, and a catcher we have no idea what he can do for us at all. Defensively he sucks and is chickenhearted. Offensively he hit a brickwall mid-way through the season.

Falls City Beer
03-26-2007, 08:18 AM
Thats another overstatement.... obviously predicting minor leaguers is more difficult for several reasons but difficult is different than pointless....

When scouting tells you more than stats (re: predicting major league pitcher success from minor league performance), then you're dealing with an unknown and inefficacious methodology. "Useless" may be a bit of an overstatement, but really, not much. As I said, you're almost as likely to hit on the best choice by throwing darts at a dartboard.

RFS62
03-26-2007, 08:29 AM
When scouting tells you more than stats (re: predicting major league pitcher success from minor league performance), then you're dealing with an unknown and inefficacious methodology. "Useless" may be a bit of an overstatement, but really, not much. As I said, you're almost as likely to hit on the best choice by throwing darts at a dartboard.



So, I guess we should have listened to Marge and just fired all the scouts? All they do is watch games, after all.

Really, FCB. Your dartboard analogy is absurd.

jojo
03-26-2007, 09:16 AM
When scouting tells you more than stats (re: predicting major league pitcher success from minor league performance), then you're dealing with an unknown and inefficacious methodology. "Useless" may be a bit of an overstatement, but really, not much. As I said, you're almost as likely to hit on the best choice by throwing darts at a dartboard.

But when methodology agrees with the scouts, the argument is a compelling one..... In Homer's case he's got scouts, methodology, and a general consensus within the organisation supporting the notion that he'll be a quality starter and that he's not far from the majors.

Falls City Beer
03-26-2007, 01:37 PM
So, I guess we should have listened to Marge and just fired all the scouts? All they do is watch games, after all.

Really, FCB. Your dartboard analogy is absurd.

Um, I'm saying that scouts are more valuable than projections when predicting future success of minor league pitchers. Projections are the dartboard, not scouts. When it comes to minor league pitching assessment.

However, I think scouting trails well behind projections for offensive assessment.

Dracodave
03-26-2007, 03:02 PM
Not to belabor the point, but you more or less intimated that the likelihood of Bailey working out wasn't that great. That was an astonishing statement. I'll grant any prospect is a question mark until they prove otherwise, but he's got significantly more upside than down. Something we haven't had in a minor league pitcher in eons.

Lets leave Baileys name out of the equotation for this next post I'm about to say cause this doesn't apply to just Bailey, it applies to all minor league pitchers.


The projection of "pitcher x" can and will vary through out the years. Said projection can change due to injury, personality, maturity and level of preparedness for each higher level of play.

The project of "batter y" can and will vary due to usage in the line up, confidence level, defensive position and personality. Said batter might tear up the minors but get too cocky and never amount to anything in the majors.

Thats been my point. Theres more than one factor dealing with prospects and their respective projections. Leaving baileys name out of this, because untill he pitches in the majors he's just a projection, he's just another could be/will be/maybe. I'm not selling him short, but he's done nothing to prove he belongs in the majors tomorrow as some think he does. He has things he needs to do.

His confidence level in his change up and two curveballs isn't there. It needs to be if he wants to be succesfull. He can't whizz 98 mph fastballs by big leaguers that are used to it. Thats where I am coming from. When he can prove to me that after inning number one, he can succesfully retire four more innings of big league hitters. I will say he lives up to any and all projections. Till then he is just that a projection.

redsmetz
03-26-2007, 03:37 PM
Lets leave Baileys name out of the equotation for this next post I'm about to say cause this doesn't apply to just Bailey, it applies to all minor league pitchers.


The projection of "pitcher x" can and will vary through out the years. Said projection can change due to injury, personality, maturity and level of preparedness for each higher level of play.

The project of "batter y" can and will vary due to usage in the line up, confidence level, defensive position and personality. Said batter might tear up the minors but get too cocky and never amount to anything in the majors.

Thats been my point. Theres more than one factor dealing with prospects and their respective projections. Leaving baileys name out of this, because untill he pitches in the majors he's just a projection, he's just another could be/will be/maybe. I'm not selling him short, but he's done nothing to prove he belongs in the majors tomorrow as some think he does. He has things he needs to do.

His confidence level in his change up and two curveballs isn't there. It needs to be if he wants to be succesfull. He can't whizz 98 mph fastballs by big leaguers that are used to it. Thats where I am coming from. When he can prove to me that after inning number one, he can succesfully retire four more innings of big league hitters. I will say he lives up to any and all projections. Till then he is just that a projection.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of what you say. My point is that we can't sell off someone with this level of talent (something we haven't had in a number years - Kearns/Dunn?) simply to play for today. I am completely behind a long term alteration of this club and its entire system. And I am not among those clamoring to bring Bailey here now. I won't lose any sleep if he doesn't show up in Cincinnati all year. I think the Reds are taking the correct, patient approach with Bailey (and for that matter all of their developing players). Step by step, build on success, etc. That's why I'm not necessarily against him starting back in AA and having the same success as last year.

I've been perplexed since coming back from my trip as to what set off this little melee with some posters throwing Bailey overboard for a shot at this year. You're right. He may never amount to anything, but I'd like to see him develop into what everyone says he should and I want him to do that here. That's long term.

Dracodave
03-26-2007, 04:06 PM
Well, Im not disagreeing with Bailey being special. Obviously he is, but everyone has faith in the kid being the next cy young winner for 40 years straight.

I have faith he'll be a good to great mlb starter. No more no less.


Everyone has put too much stock into the kid and thats where my agruement is coming from. We need more than just Bailey and thats all we have on the pitching front thats TOR. Everyone else is projected as number 3- middle relief. We need to start spending money on drafting pitchers like Bailey, and the crew that will devolp those pitchers into TOR starters.

We don't need to let one or two players dictate what we do because we HAVE that as we speak.