PDA

View Full Version : MLB draft this Wednesday -- who should the Reds take?



Blitz Dorsey
06-04-2007, 04:06 PM
Sorry if this has been posted already. I looked and didn't see anything.

Due to our better-than-expected 2006 season, we are picking 15th in the draft this year. Hopefully Krivsky doesn't make a bad pick like last year with Drew Stubbs. For as terrible as Dan O'Brien was overall, he was pretty good with the draft getting us Bailey in '04 and then Bruce in '05.

The Reds also have two sandwich picks (between the first and second rounds) for losing Aurilia and Schoenweis. Yes, I was as shocked as you. We actually get a sandwich pick for losing Schoenweis??? Yes we do.

With our first four picks (first round, 2 sandwich, second round) I would take three pitchers and a catcher. Or maybe two pitchers, a catcher and a power-hitting right-handed hitter -- either a third baseman or outfielder.

M2
06-04-2007, 04:25 PM
If Matt Wieters drops and the Reds don't take him, then I don't want to hear word one from the organization's mouth about how they're doing business differently.

If Wieters isn't there, I'd have my eye on guys like Matt Dominguez, Jarrod Parker, Nick Schmidt and Matt LaPorta.

jmcclain19
06-04-2007, 05:12 PM
Just picking nits - the title of your thread is misleading - the draft starts on Thursday.

dougdirt
06-04-2007, 06:20 PM
Sorry if this has been posted already. I looked and didn't see anything.

Due to our better-than-expected 2006 season, we are picking 15th in the draft this year. Hopefully Krivsky doesn't make a bad pick like last year with Drew Stubbs. For as terrible as Dan O'Brien was overall, he was pretty good with the draft getting us Bailey in '04 and then Bruce in '05.

The Reds also have two sandwich picks (between the first and second rounds) for losing Aurilia and Schoenweis. Yes, I was as shocked as you. We actually get a sandwich pick for losing Schoenweis??? Yes we do.

With our first four picks (first round, 2 sandwich, second round) I would take three pitchers and a catcher. Or maybe two pitchers, a catcher and a power-hitting right-handed hitter -- either a third baseman or outfielder.

Awful early to be giving up on Drew Stubbs don't you think?

Eric_Davis
06-04-2007, 07:47 PM
I'm not trying to be funny, but I seriously think they should take the player with the highest potential regardless of age or experience (highschool or college), but he must not have injuries in his past (knee, arm, or shoulder surgeries). I don't care what position he is.

Danny Serafini
06-04-2007, 08:06 PM
^^I was just about to post the same thing. Best player available, period. There's no reason to draft for need when you don't know what your needs will be 3-4 years from now. I really don't care who they take as long as it's the best player on the board.

M2
06-04-2007, 08:19 PM
^^I was just about to post the same thing. Best player available, period. There's no reason to draft for need when you don't know what your needs will be 3-4 years from now. I really don't care who they take as long as it's the best player on the board.

Though it's sounds bizarre, it's amazing how many teams talk themselves out of the best player available for financial or self-inflicted BS reasons. That's why I bring up Wieters. If he's there at 15, he's without question the best player available.

NorrisHopper30
06-04-2007, 08:49 PM
I will also go with best player available, I believe that's the way to go in baseball.

Patrick Bateman
06-04-2007, 08:57 PM
Though it's sounds bizarre, it's amazing how many teams talk themselves out of the best player available for financial or self-inflicted BS reasons. That's why I bring up Wieters. If he's there at 15, he's without question the best player available.

Agreed. Not to mention he is exactly what this organization needs. If they pass on Wieters, there will be no good defense possible from the front office.

thorn
06-04-2007, 09:00 PM
Financial considerations are a part of the draft, whether we like it or not, it matters to many teams, even more so this year. If I'm not mistaken, outside of college seniors, teams have to sign thier picks by Aug 15, I may be wrong on this, but I remember something said about it. If that's the case, Boras will have a field day this year.

Aronchis
06-04-2007, 09:05 PM
You can't talk yourself out of anything if you don't have the money. It is something you have to accept. I think Steve1492 said it best, low revenue teams are called that for a reason.

Patrick Bateman
06-04-2007, 09:10 PM
You can't talk yourself out of anything if you don't have the money. It is something you have to accept. I think Steve1492 said it best, low revenue teams are called that for a reason.

The difference beteen Wieters and whatever other option is monumental and well worth the money in this case. If the Reds don't have the money because of the likes of Cormier, Saarloos, and Stanton, then it's not because of financial reasons, but intelligence issues.

Aronchis
06-04-2007, 09:13 PM
The difference beteen Wieters and whatever other option is monumental and well worth the money in this case. If the Reds don't have the money because of the likes of Cormier, Saarloos, and Stanton, then it's not because of financial reasons, but intelligence issues.

That money wasn't earmarked for the draft, but for payroll. Thus, express your concerns there.

Patrick Bateman
06-04-2007, 09:16 PM
That money wasn't earmarked for the draft, but for payroll. Thus, express your concerns there.

My point is, that when there are potential difference makers in the draft that generally you can't afford, it is better to spend that extra money in the draft, rather than filling out the bottom of your roster.

If the plan was Stanton/Cormier/Saarloos is more valuable than the frm system, then the Reds have a massive hole in their plan.

BoydsOfSummer
06-04-2007, 09:17 PM
Wow---Is it really a possibility that Wieters drops to 15th? I would think the Reds would be doing flips if that happens. I know I will be if it happens. That would be suh-weet. Even if he eventually moves off catching he'll hit at a corner wiyh a heller of an arm.

Is he a Boras-Baby?

Patrick Bateman
06-04-2007, 09:19 PM
Is he a Boras-Baby?

Yep. That's why some people see him dropping down towards the Reds.

BoydsOfSummer
06-04-2007, 09:21 PM
Yep. That's why some people see him dropping down towards the Reds.

Yeah, okay, that explains things.

Aronchis
06-04-2007, 09:23 PM
My point is, that when there are potential difference makers in the draft that generally you can't afford, it is better to spend that extra money in the draft, rather than filling out the bottom of your roster.

If the plan was Stanton/Cormier/Saarloos is more valuable than the frm system, then the Reds have a massive hole in their plan.

Then complain to the FO you want lower payrolls or scouting budgets and higher draft budgets. Remember, we are talking about untested talent. A guy like Wieters may be nothing more than hype.

Low revenue teams fans like the Brewers and Reds have complained about "lack of budgets" for developmental signings for years now. Yet, the Reds after Marge got suspended moved from dead last in money for scouting in 1996 up to middle of the league by 2003 in money allocated to scouting. But the signing bonus's exploded during that period as well.

Blitz Dorsey
06-04-2007, 09:30 PM
Awful early to be giving up on Drew Stubbs don't you think?

I figured someone would say that. But please don't think my opinion is just based on this year which includes less than 200 ABs at Dayton. I thought it was a bad pick last year when they made it and his performance in the minor leagues since then (including in rookie ball last year) has just backed it up. Stubbs strikes out too much and we should have taken the best pitcher available there.

I am not giving up on Stubbs, just pointing out it was a bad pick for that early in the draft. Especially with our pitching needs. Why take an OF there when you just took an OF the previous year with your first round pick and you need pitching as much or more than anything. I just don't get why Krivsky fell in love with Drew Stubbs. He is one of these "5 tool" players who isn't great at anything. He is supposed to be a power hitter, but he has 6 HRs this year and didn't hit many last year either. He doesn't hit for average. He is good but not great defensively. He's fast, but not a guy who is going to steal 30 bags in the majors. He has a strong arm, but nothing too special.

Patrick Bateman
06-04-2007, 09:30 PM
Then complain to the FO you want lower payrolls or scouting budgets and higher draft budgets. Remember, we are talking about untested talent. A guy like Wieters may be nothing more than hype.


Any prospect could just be hype, but Wieters is a far better prospect than whatever falls to us. And it's not close. I'm not saying the Reds need to generally have a higher budget, but they should be willing to pay a little extra to get a massively better prospect if it means trimming some extra money off the next year's payroll.

If the Reds aren't willing to spend the budget on a talent upgrade, then there is a major problem. Krivsky has said he wants to focus on building a good farm system, so here's a chance. If he wants to build the farm system, then he needs to be willing to spend the money neccessary in the draft. If they aren't willing to go after a guy like Wieters, then they are already 2 steps backwards in the developmental system. Again, if Krivsky can't see that a major prospect upgrade is worth more than some bullpen stiffs, then the Reds are basically hopeless.

Aronchis
06-04-2007, 09:41 PM
Any prospect could just be hype, but Wieters is a far better prospect than whatever falls to us. And it's not close. I'm not saying the Reds need to generally have a higher budget, but they should be willing to pay a little extra to get a massively better prospect if it means trimming some extra money off the next year's payroll.

If the Reds aren't willing to spend the budget on a talent upgrade, then there is a major problem. Krivsky has said he wants to focus on building a good farm system, so here's a chance. If he wants to build the farm system, then he needs to be willing to spend the money neccessary in the draft. If they aren't willing to go after a guy like Wieters, then they are already 2 steps backwards in the developmental system. Again, if Krivsky can't see that a major prospect upgrade is worth more than some bullpen stiffs, then the Reds are basically hopeless.

Krivsky doesn't set the budget all by himself, especially if the owner(Cast) wants to win now. Krivsky may feel spreading that money around on players he can get rid of easier than signing a player to a 9 mill deal for 3 years to deal with overtime since the owner wanted it spent on payroll(for example). We don't know how this money came into being spent and how it was planned, no one man is to blame, but a organizational wide failing.

I have been complaining for years the Reds should flush millions into draft budgets over payroll concerns, even if it means losing some player from the MLB roster intially. I complained after the whole "Griffey surges revenue" idea bombed in 2001 that they needed cut back payroll from the 2000 high and put that money into draft budgets playing for some more expensive talent, but they refused(as an organization) and kept on hoping 1999 would strike again. The Cast era Reds have continued this tradition. Literally..........so far.

The fact is, nobody that runs to the Reds seems to understand how to build up a good product, which in the long run, sags revenue even more. A nasty repeating cycle.

Patrick Bateman
06-04-2007, 09:53 PM
Krivsky doesn't set the budget all by himself, especially if the owner(Cast) wants to win now. Krivsky may feel spreading that money around on players he can get rid of easier than signing a player to a 9 mill deal for 3 years to deal with overtime since the owner wanted it spent on payroll(for example). We don't know how this money came into being spent and how it was planned, no one man is to blame, but a organizational wide failing.


That's certainly true, but Krivsky is a guy that Cast has put a lot of faith into. Surely Krivsky recognizes that this current Reds team is not ready to contend with it's current state.

Knowing Krivsky's want to improve the farm system, he should be more than willing to put his efforts into convincing Cast that increasing the draft budget would be beneficial in the overall scheme of things. We as fans obviously don't have all the facts, but when draft day comes and a situation arises where the Reds pass on Wieters, there should be a lot of irate fans and a lot of blame to be passed around, which will fall squarely on one man's shoulders. If he fails in convincing Cast, he's the one who feels the heat.

Aronchis
06-04-2007, 10:01 PM
That's certainly true, but Krivsky is a guy that Cast has put a lot of faith into. Surely Krivsky recognizes that this current Reds team is not ready to contend with it's current state.

Knowing Krivsky's want to improve the farm system, he should be more than willing to put his efforts into convincing Cast that increasing the draft budget would be beneficial in the overall scheme of things. We as fans obviously don't have all the facts, but when draft day comes and a situation arises where the Reds pass on Wieters, there should be a lot of irate fans and a lot of blame to be passed around, which will fall squarely on one man's shoulders. If he fails in convincing Cast, he's the one who feels the heat.

Doesn't matter, if he cries to he is blue in the face and Cast won't budge, then it is all mute. It is organizational problem AK, not one man. It starts at the top. People never gave Lindner a moments rest besides the fact he pretty much ran by the Limiteds conservative plans and let Allen/Bowden handle everything.

Cast should get no less anger directed at him than Krivsky. The plan that is on the field is his own doing. If Krivsky talked him into this mess, he should fire him, if he can't see that he needs to be fired, then he should let somebody else handle running the club. If he has ignored Krivsky's advice for rebuilding and continues to do so, then he should step down.

It is simply up to Cast. He is the boss. He can make the corrective moves.

dougdirt
06-04-2007, 10:16 PM
I figured someone would say that. But please don't think my opinion is just based on this year which includes less than 200 ABs at Dayton. I thought it was a bad pick last year when they made it and his performance in the minor leagues since then (including in rookie ball last year) has just backed it up. Stubbs strikes out too much and we should have taken the best pitcher available there.

I am not giving up on Stubbs, just pointing out it was a bad pick for that early in the draft. Especially with our pitching needs. Why take an OF there when you just took an OF the previous year with your first round pick and you need pitching as much or more than anything. I just don't get why Krivsky fell in love with Drew Stubbs. He is one of these "5 tool" players who isn't great at anything. He is supposed to be a power hitter, but he has 6 HRs this year and didn't hit many last year either. He doesn't hit for average. He is good but not great defensively. He's fast, but not a guy who is going to steal 30 bags in the majors. He has a strong arm, but nothing too special.

Anytime that you draft for need in baseball you are setting yourself up to fail. The Reds have so much more pitching talent in the minors than they do hitting talent its not even really that close. You don't just draft the best pitching available if you think that the guy you are going to take would be the best pro one day. Did I like the Drew Stubbs pick at the time? Absolutely not. I wanted Billy Rowell like a fat kid wants an extra slice of birthday cake, but it didnt happen.
As for Stubbs not being great at anything.... I am not sure how much defense you have seen him play, but its great. The guy is like a thouroughbred out in CF. He just glides effortlessly to the ball like he isnt even trying. As for his bat, it has some questions, but when people try to compare it to BJ Szymanski I just laugh. They both strike out a lot, but thats about where it ends with the comparisons. Drew had a bad April, but in May he was very solid with a .403 OBP and a .447 SLG and he even improved the rate at which he struck out.
If he were a corner infield or outfield guy, I might be a little worried about his bat, but since he isnt and he plays one of the lightest hitting positions on the field, he truly needs to OPS just .750 and play good defense to be a very valuable player.

Patrick Bateman
06-04-2007, 10:40 PM
Doesn't matter, if he cries to he is blue in the face and Cast won't budge, then it is all mute. It is organizational problem AK, not one man. It starts at the top. People never gave Lindner a moments rest besides the fact he pretty much ran by the Limiteds conservative plans and let Allen/Bowden handle everything.

Cast should get no less anger directed at him than Krivsky. The plan that is on the field is his own doing. If Krivsky talked him into this mess, he should fire him, if he can't see that he needs to be fired, then he should let somebody else handle running the club. If he has ignored Krivsky's advice for rebuilding and continues to do so, then he should step down.

It is simply up to Cast. He is the boss. He can make the corrective moves.


I'm not convicned that's true. Since the day Krivsky got the GM spot, it has seemed that Cast has allowed Krivsky to basically steer the ship. IMO, I have always got the impression that Cast had the utmost faith in Krivsky to get the job done. During the whole GM search, Krivsky amongst other candidates had to basically form their plan and convince Cast that their plan was the right one. Knowing the general philosophy in Minny that building through the farm was the way to go for small market teams (this has been the philosophy that Krivsky has shown), I'd be absolutely shocked if Krivsky couldn't get Cast on board to put some extra part of the budget on the draft (especially if it meant getting a massively better prospect as a reward).

That's the type of plan that Krivsky used to convince Cast that he was the man for the job. So what has changed since then that it would be impossible to convince Cast that the draft is a secondary expenditure of talent? I get the distinct impression that Krivsky has the type of power with Cast that if he wants Wieters, then he will get Wieters.

M2
06-04-2007, 11:21 PM
Financial considerations are a part of the draft, whether we like it or not, it matters to many teams, even more so this year. If I'm not mistaken, outside of college seniors, teams have to sign thier picks by Aug 15, I may be wrong on this, but I remember something said about it. If that's the case, Boras will have a field day this year.

The Aug. 15th deadline is actually an anti-Boras rule. It means he can't stretch out negotiations ad infinitum.

As for financial considerations, either the Reds are prepared to play with the big dogs or they're not. Castellini walked in claiming he would not conduct business as usual. Here's a chance to prove it. The Reds talked themselves out of Derek Jeter and Scott Kazmir in past years due to "financial considerations." If Wieters is there he's the best player on the board, period. He's considered the best catching prospect since Joe Mauer.

Put up or shut up, Bob. I'm not interested in empty promises, I'm interested in the team I root for acting like it's not a doormat.

LoganBuck
06-04-2007, 11:26 PM
The Aug. 15th deadline is actually an anti-Boras rule. It means he can't stretch out negotiations ad infinitum.

As for financial considerations, either the Reds are prepared to play with the big dogs or they're not. Castellini walked in claiming he would not conduct business as usual. Here's a chance to prove it. The Reds talked themselves out of Derek Jeter and Scott Kazmir in past years due to "financial considerations." If Wieters is there he's the best player on the board, period. He's considered the best catching prospect since Joe Mauer.

Put up or shut up, Bob. I'm not interested in empty promises, I'm interested in the team I root for acting like it's not a doormat.

Krivsky was part of the team that drafted and developed Joe Maurer. Maybe there is a chance, that they take Wieters.

Aronchis
06-04-2007, 11:31 PM
The Aug. 15th deadline is actually an anti-Boras rule. It means he can't stretch out negotiations ad infinitum.

As for financial considerations, either the Reds are prepared to play with the big dogs or they're not. Castellini walked in claiming he would not conduct business as usual. Here's a chance to prove it. The Reds talked themselves out of Derek Jeter and Scott Kazmir in past years due to "financial considerations." If Wieters is there he's the best player on the board, period. He's considered the best catching prospect since Joe Mauer.

Put up or shut up, Bob. I'm not interested in empty promises, I'm interested in the team I root for acting like it's not a doormat.

Amen!!!!

Blue
06-04-2007, 11:38 PM
I think Wieters will be a non issue shortly after the draft begins. I can't see the Cubs passing on him at 3.

HBP
06-05-2007, 01:34 AM
Just for reference, the last ten #15 picks:

2006 - Nationals - Christopher Marrero
2005 – White Sox - Lance Broadway
2004 – Diamondbacks - Stephen Drew
2003 – White Sox – Brian Anderson
2002 – Mets – Scott Kazmir
2001 – Blue Jays - Gabe Gross
2000 – Phillies - Chase Utley
1999 - White Sox - Jason Stumm
1998 – Pirates - Clinton Johnston
1997 - White Sox - Jason Dellaero

dougdirt
06-05-2007, 01:42 AM
Surely some studs to be had at 15. This year the draft is fairly deep with solid talent from 10-40.

Patrick Bateman
06-05-2007, 02:10 AM
Amen!!!!

Look, I agree that Castellini has the final word in this ordeal, but don't you think that he's basically willing to follow Krivsky's plan? Castellini is going to listen to his baseball people in the end.

If Krisky says that Wieters is worth more of the allocated budget, then I think Cast will be willing to let it happen. If Krivsky says he's not worth the money, then I don't think it will happen.

What I'm saying, is that I get the sense that Cast has basically put control in Krivsky's hands, and ultimately, I think the draft choice will come down to Krivsky's decision. I don't know that for sure, but based on the past that is the sense I get. Cast was more than willing to allow Krivsky to deal 2 of the faces of the Reds franchise for no name players. Obviously, that's a different case, but it still applies. I bet Lindner would not have allowed 'The Trade" to happen even if his GM thought it was the right move. Cast has shown his faith in Krivsky, and until now, has shown that he's willing to take on salary if it means wins. So ultimately, I'm willing to say that the decision really lies with Krivsky.

Either way, if the Reds do end up passing on Wieters if he is available, there will be plenty of blame to go around for everybody.

Xavier Redleg
06-05-2007, 02:21 AM
The Aug. 15th deadline is actually an anti-Boras rule. It means he can't stretch out negotiations ad infinitum.

I'll be interested in seeing if any teams teams pass up on singing their Boras client draftees if the team feels like Boras if asking for a completely rediculous price. Remember, if teams don't sign their drafted player, the team gets the same pick the next year. I don't think teams would pass up on signing their first round pick, but it is a possibility.

If anyone's interested in reading about the effects of these new rules and the new deadline, BA answered a question about it recently. They don't think the deadline will make a big difference.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/264014.html

Eric_Davis
06-05-2007, 03:33 AM
Just for reference, the last ten #15 picks:

2006 - Nationals - Christopher Marrero
2005 White Sox - Lance Broadway
2004 Diamondbacks - Stephen Drew
2003 White Sox Brian Anderson
2002 Mets Scott Kazmir
2001 Blue Jays - Gabe Gross
2000 Phillies - Chase Utley
1999 - White Sox - Jason Stumm
1998 Pirates - Clinton Johnston
1997 - White Sox - Jason Dellaero

Man, that's about a 50-50 chance of being right or wrong.

jmcclain19
06-05-2007, 05:19 AM
Man, that's about a 50-50 chance of being right or wrong.


Kazmir & Drew should have gone much, much higher but fell due to percieved or real demands on the Top 10 clubs.

So the actual number is much smaller.

Aronchis
06-05-2007, 05:53 AM
Kazmir & Drew should have gone much, much higher but fell due to percieved or real demands on the Top 10 clubs.

So the actual number is much smaller.

It may happen again, lucky 15.

HBP
06-05-2007, 09:58 AM
The last ten #34 picks...this is scary:

2006 - Diamondbacks - Brooks Brown
2005 - Marlins - Ryan Tucker
2004 - White Sox - Tyler Lumsden
2003 - Giants - Roger Whitaker
2002 - Braves - Daniel Meyer
2001 - Yankees - Bronson Sardinha
2000 - Reds - Dustin Moseley
1999 - Orioles - Joshua Cenate
1998 - Tigers - Nathan Cornejo
1997 - Braves - John LeRoy

edabbs44
06-05-2007, 10:41 AM
The last ten #34 picks...this is scary:

2006 - Diamondbacks - Brooks Brown
2005 - Marlins - Ryan Tucker
2004 - White Sox - Tyler Lumsden
2003 - Giants - Roger Whitaker
2002 - Braves - Daniel Meyer
2001 - Yankees - Bronson Sardinha
2000 - Reds - Dustin Moseley
1999 - Orioles - Joshua Cenate
1998 - Tigers - Nathan Cornejo
1997 - Braves - John LeRoy

It's all about drafting the right guy...I'm sure that there have been players drafted after 34 who have turned out ok.

Replace Whitaker with Saltalamaccia (#36), Meyer with Teahen (#39) and Lumsden with Street (#40) and it will look a lot better.

You can also replace Tucker with Hochevar (#40).

edabbs44
06-05-2007, 01:57 PM
Interesting take on who the Rays should take at #1. But, by looking at what he says about taking pitching, this is how I feel about the Reds and what I've been saying for a while.

If the Reds think this guy Ahrens is a lock to be a star over any available pitcher, then fine. But they need to load up on arms.


Rays should take Price No. 1

Carl Crawford is signed through 2010, Rocco Baldelli through 2011. Delmon Young is under Tampa Bay's control through 2012, and so is B.J. Upton. The Devil Rays' window of opportunity for playoff relevance -- their first real and best chance, after 10 years in existence -- will occur sometime in the next three to four years.

But the window will close on Tampa Bay unless the Rays develop better pitchers and more pitching depth, and this is why it makes sense for the Rays to take Vanderbilt pitcher David Price with the first pick in Thursday's amateur draft.


The Rays could still take Georgia Tech catcher Matt Wieters or maybe prep third baseman Josh Vitters. But neither Wieters nor Vitters would help the Rays address their glaring need for high-end pitching -- the kind of pitching they need to contend with the big-money monsters that have dominated the AL East.


Price came into this season amid high expectations and has done everything to live up to them, going 11-0 with a 2.59 ERA and 192 strikeouts in 132 innings, and he has helped Vanderbilt to a No. 1 ranking. He is left-handed, throws hard and is widely respected for his work ethic and drive to improve. If the Rays drafted him, it's possible he would be in the big leagues sometime soon, within the next calendar year, joining James Shields, Scott Kazmir and maybe Jeff Niemann in the Tampa Bay rotation by the end of the 2008 season. "He has the best chance of giving [the Rays] help right away," said a major league talent evaluator. "And it's pitching help."

Increasingly, there are only three ways you can acquire top-flight pitching.

(1) You can either scout and draft your own talent.
(2) You can spend big dollars for free agents.
(3) You get lucky in a second-level trade or with a Rule 5 draft pick. Teams have all but stopped trading their top tier of young pitching (unless it's in a deal like John Danks for Brandon McCarthy, young gun for young gun). Spoke with a couple of general managers recently and asked if they would trade their best young pitcher for Crawford -- in both cases, these are excellent major league pitchers -- and they immediately shot down the speculation. "No chance," said one. "I love Crawford, and there are a lot of players I would trade for him. But not that guy [the pitcher], because how would I replace him?"

So if the Rays pass on Price, they would still be searching for someone like him. They need to take the pitcher.

Kingspoint
06-05-2007, 05:15 PM
Anyone personally seen any of the available players more than once?

Blitz Dorsey
06-05-2007, 09:41 PM
I'm still dumbfounded that we got a sandwich pick for "losing" Scot Schowenweis. Aurilia I can almost understand. But MLB is crazy for giving out such high compensatory picks for losing a middle reliever who we aquired midseason. I mean, I'm glad we are benefitting this year, but this is a moronic rule.

If you lose a good FA, that's one thing. But Scot Freakin Schowenweis?

Blitz Dorsey
06-05-2007, 09:45 PM
Anytime that you draft for need in baseball you are setting yourself up to fail. The Reds have so much more pitching talent in the minors than they do hitting talent its not even really that close. You don't just draft the best pitching available if you think that the guy you are going to take would be the best pro one day. Did I like the Drew Stubbs pick at the time? Absolutely not. I wanted Billy Rowell like a fat kid wants an extra slice of birthday cake, but it didnt happen.
As for Stubbs not being great at anything.... I am not sure how much defense you have seen him play, but its great. The guy is like a thouroughbred out in CF. He just glides effortlessly to the ball like he isnt even trying. As for his bat, it has some questions, but when people try to compare it to BJ Szymanski I just laugh. They both strike out a lot, but thats about where it ends with the comparisons. Drew had a bad April, but in May he was very solid with a .403 OBP and a .447 SLG and he even improved the rate at which he struck out.
If he were a corner infield or outfield guy, I might be a little worried about his bat, but since he isnt and he plays one of the lightest hitting positions on the field, he truly needs to OPS just .750 and play good defense to be a very valuable player.

Well, you make some good points and even admit that you weren't a fan of the Reds taking Stubbs last year. I hope you are right that he is a great defensive player and not just good. Because there is no doubt in my mind he will struggle offensively in the majors. You don't draft defense and speed that early in the draft IMO. Just a huge blunder by Krivsky. I agree you can't "draft for need" but when Drew Stubbs is the best position player on the board, I'm taking the best pitcher available. That might sound simplistic, but no way was Stubbs worthy of a top 10 first round selection. He would have been a good pick for someone in the sandwich round, but I think we reached for him far too much (not saying he would have lasted until the sandwich round -- someone would have taken a chance on him in the first round, I'm just not happy it was us so early).

EDIT -- And I would posit that the Reds "drafted for need" when they took Stubbs. They wanted a right-handed hitting OF since all of their power hitting OFs are left handed. That just made the pick even worse IMO.

Mario-Rijo
06-06-2007, 12:27 AM
Obviously as has been mentioned quite a bit, if Weiters is there you take him. Unless and I mean you better be absolutely right about someone else under that scenario, you have a guy who you think's ceiling is much higher and he has extremely high shot at reaching that ceiling.

Otherwise if Weiters isn't available, I gotta go Dominguez if he is there.

Blue
06-06-2007, 12:30 AM
Would you take catcher JP Arencibia at 34 if available? I think I would. He and LHP Nick Hagadone are who I like at that spot.

Eric_Davis
06-06-2007, 01:19 AM
The last ten #34 picks...this is scary:

2006 - Diamondbacks - Brooks Brown
2005 - Marlins - Ryan Tucker
2004 - White Sox - Tyler Lumsden
2003 - Giants - Roger Whitaker
2002 - Braves - Daniel Meyer
2001 - Yankees - Bronson Sardinha
2000 - Reds - Dustin Moseley
1999 - Orioles - Joshua Cenate
1998 - Tigers - Nathan Cornejo
1997 - Braves - John LeRoy

It's pretty amazing that that many scouting departments and G.M.'s can be that wrong.