PDA

View Full Version : BA: Pioneer League Top 20 (3 REDS)



New Fever
09-25-2007, 01:46 PM
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/features/264919.html

1. Todd Frazier- showed polished approach, good instincts, has to move to 3rd or corner outfield

5. Brandon Waring- plus power, bat speed, may have to switch to LF or 1B

16. Justin Reed- raw, good range, slightly below average arm

Screwball
09-25-2007, 01:54 PM
How many different MLB teams are represented in the Pioneer League?

New Fever
09-25-2007, 02:09 PM
8 teams

lollipopcurve
09-25-2007, 03:19 PM
Frazschuh!

Bodes well. Waring at 5 is very solid, too. Some promising RH power bats (these two and Soto) added to the system -- much needed!

texasdave
09-25-2007, 03:24 PM
Frazschuh!




Gesundheit!

M2
09-25-2007, 07:39 PM
I really think Frazier could fly through the minors. He fundamentally gets it at the plate.

OnBaseMachine
09-25-2007, 09:19 PM
I really think Frazier could fly through the minors. He fundamentally gets it at the plate.

Yep.

I think someone on here compared him to a more athletic Kevin Youkilis. I'll take it.

Kc61
09-25-2007, 09:24 PM
There's been a lot of discussion who is the Reds top prospect after the "big four." I previously voted for Roenicke, although Stubbs, Wood, Francisco, Maloney, all got some mention.

All things considered, at this point, I think it is pretty clear that Todd Frazier is the fifth best Reds prospect after Bruce, Bailey, Cueto, and Votto (in whatever order).

And Waring gets consideration for the top ten.

Superdude
09-25-2007, 10:23 PM
What do you guys think the power potential is for Frazier. He's been about as solid a hitter as they come so far in his career, and he's a big guy. Is 25 homers a reasonable expectation?

dougdirt
09-25-2007, 11:13 PM
I would say 25 HR is reasonable for him.

Betterread
09-25-2007, 11:20 PM
I really think Frazier could fly through the minors. He fundamentally gets it at the plate.
Is that what you see? The prevailing opinion is that his swing is unorthodox and that it is inefficient. He has legitimate power potential, but he does not have a easy stroke. As a comparison, Jay Bruce has a smooth swing that produces easy power.
As I see it, Frazier is a desire/determination guy, not a tools or good fundamentals player. You can't argue with his success so far.

M2
09-26-2007, 11:08 AM
Is that what you see? The prevailing opinion is that his swing is unorthodox and that it is inefficient. He has legitimate power potential, but he does not have a easy stroke. As a comparison, Jay Bruce has a smooth swing that produces easy power.
As I see it, Frazier is a desire/determination guy, not a tools or good fundamentals player. You can't argue with his success so far.

The game's full of unorthodox swings. Frazier knows what to swing at and that's most of the battle.

WebScorpion
10-04-2007, 10:52 AM
3 in the GCL... 3 in the Pioneer League... 4 of the best at the cusp of the Major Leagues... :eek:

We're heavenly blessed and worldly wise,
We're peeping tom techies with X-ray eyes.
Things are going great; And they're only getting better.
We're doing all right, getting good grades,
the future's so bright, we gotta wear shades!
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

;)

Superdude
10-04-2007, 04:14 PM
As I see it, Frazier is a desire/determination guy, not a tools or good fundamentals player. You can't argue with his success so far.

Justin Turner is a desire/determination guy. Frazier has plenty of tools.

GoReds33
10-05-2007, 05:01 PM
Justin Turner is a desire/determination guy. Frazier has plenty of tools.Frazier is a beast. I watched something about him in the LLWS on ESPN. He seems like he's always been really good.:)

PuffyPig
10-12-2007, 09:59 AM
There's been a lot of discussion who is the Reds top prospect after the "big four." I previously voted for Roenicke, although Stubbs, Wood, Francisco, Maloney, all got some mention.

All things considered, at this point, I think it is pretty clear that Todd Frazier is the fifth best Reds prospect after Bruce, Bailey, Cueto, and Votto (in whatever order).

And Waring gets consideration for the top ten.

I'd be amazed if Stubbs isn't listed at #5 when the propsect handbook comes out.

dougdirt
10-12-2007, 10:07 AM
I'd be amazed if Stubbs isn't listed at #5 when the propsect handbook comes out.

I am with you on that one. He isn't the hitter that Frazier is, but Stubbs at least knows his position, and he plays it VERY well. Frazier is likely #6 when the list comes out.

RedsManRick
10-12-2007, 03:44 PM
Doug, I can't help but see Stubbs as Chris Dickerson with a touch more power. If we ignore that he was a first rounder, what is in the scouting report would indicate that he's really the best prospect after the big 4? Further, what does he have to do in 2008 to continue to deserve such praise.

I know he can play great defense and has great speed, but so did Reggie Taylor. Is his challenge just tightening up that swing and making more contact?

Kc61
10-12-2007, 03:51 PM
I am with you on that one. He isn't the hitter that Frazier is, but Stubbs at least knows his position, and he plays it VERY well. Frazier is likely #6 when the list comes out.

Well, Chris Dickerson knows his position too.

If Stubbs is the Reds fifth best prospect, then BA is really in a theoretical world. Hitting has been a significant deficiency for him and, despite a few good weeks after he choked up, is possibly an achilles heel. If he doesn't pick it up, he's just a defensive back up.

On the other hand, if Frazier can hit as well as he's shown, he will be a major league starter. He may not know his position yet, but he'll get one, believe me. He's an athlete who can and does hit -- he'll start somewhere for someone.

For a position player, hitting is not just some footnote. It's obviously key.

Right now, I'd have Frazier at 5, Roenicke at 6, Maloney at 7, and Stubbs at 8. (Which represents a positive move for Drew on my list.) Probably Wood 9 and Francisco 10, by virtue of his late season homer barrage and his youth.

dougdirt
10-12-2007, 05:25 PM
Doug, I can't help but see Stubbs as Chris Dickerson with a touch more power. If we ignore that he was a first rounder, what is in the scouting report would indicate that he's really the best prospect after the big 4? Further, what does he have to do in 2008 to continue to deserve such praise.

I know he can play great defense and has great speed, but so did Reggie Taylor. Is his challenge just tightening up that swing and making more contact?

All Stubbs has to do is hit close to what he did the second half of 2007. (KC, he had an .880 OPS in the second half of the season, it wasn't just a few weeks after he choked up, the month before he began choking up Stubbs had a .925 OPS).

As for Maloney, I have a hard time puting him in my top 15 right now. I am just not impressed by pitchers, regardless of what arm they throw with, who cant hit 90 MPH on their absolute best days of their lives.

RedsManRick
10-12-2007, 07:17 PM
All Stubbs has to do is hit close to what he did the second half of 2007. (KC, he had an .880 OPS in the second half of the season, it wasn't just a few weeks after he choked up, the month before he began choking up Stubbs had a .925 OPS).

As for Maloney, I have a hard time puting him in my top 15 right now. I am just not impressed by pitchers, regardless of what arm they throw with, who cant hit 90 MPH on their absolute best days of their lives.

Shouldn't we expect a bit more out of a 23 year old in A ball? What has changed developmentally that allowed him to succeed in the 2nd half?

dougdirt
10-12-2007, 08:42 PM
Shouldn't we expect a bit more out of a 23 year old in A ball? What has changed developmentally that allowed him to succeed in the 2nd half?

He was 22, and I don't know if we should expect more (for the overall season, yes, but for his second half, he hit very well). As for what changed developmentally in the second half, I honestly couldn't tell you. Maybe it was just one of those things where he had something click in his head. That said, about half of his second half at bats came away from the leadoff spot and maybe it was as simple as swinging at good pitches earlier in the count rather than taking them because he was batting leadoff. I don't know honestly, but he showed drastic improvement from one half to the next.

Superdude
10-13-2007, 12:29 AM
This is a thought that occurred to me the other day, and I guess this thread is fitting enough. How has Todd Frazier unanimously blown past Mesoraco on the Redszone opinon charts? 4 months ago, Mesoraco was the 15th overall pick in the draft. Are we putting too much stock into a couple hundred rookie ball at bats or was Frazier just flying incredibly under the radar? My point is, if the draft was tomorrow and we didn't have the sandwich pick, would you take Frazier over Mesoraco?

camisadelgolf
10-13-2007, 05:15 AM
I think that's a good question, Superdude. Personally, I'd still go with Mesoraco. Because he's a catcher and a teenager, it will presumably take him longer to reach his potential, and on top of that, a high school catcher is the most likely to never reach his potential. Don't get me wrong, though--I believe Mesoraco will be a solid MLB player in the future.

Comparing Mesoraco and Frazier is really a case of apples and oranges, in my opinion. A good catcher isn't expected to put up nearly the same offensive numbers as a good corner position player, so relative to the rest of the league at his position, I think Mesoraco will be the better player, but as for rating players without that particular bias, I think Frazier can be a much better hitter.

M2
10-13-2007, 04:52 PM
This is a thought that occurred to me the other day, and I guess this thread is fitting enough. How has Todd Frazier unanimously blown past Mesoraco on the Redszone opinon charts? 4 months ago, Mesoraco was the 15th overall pick in the draft. Are we putting too much stock into a couple hundred rookie ball at bats or was Frazier just flying incredibly under the radar? My point is, if the draft was tomorrow and we didn't have the sandwich pick, would you take Frazier over Mesoraco?

Hell yeah. Look at the history of high school catcher picks and then factor in where Mesoraco came from (not exactly a baseball hotbed). I don't care where he was rated on draft day, he was a high school catcher from the weeds of Pennsylvania. He was a significant reach and if he makes it to the majors it's going to be a looooong developmental curve.

Mesoraco's stock was pretty much guaranteed to drop once he got into pro ball. He may turn out to be more valuable in ten years, but he's a symptom of an amnesiac system. If scouting departments had the collective ability to measure risk, he'd have been a much lower pick.

Superdude
10-13-2007, 08:26 PM
Mesoraco's stock was pretty much guaranteed to drop once he got into pro ball.

I don't agree there. When Drew Stubbs finished '06 in Billings, his stock had dropped. The same rule doesn't apply for Mesoraco. Like you said, Mesoraco is a high school catcher from the weeds of Pennsylvania. We drafted him because of what he could be 4-5 years from now, not what he is now. Did you expect him to rake in his first couple hundred at bats...with two hurt thumbs?


He was a significant reach and if he makes it to the majors it's going to be a looooong developmental curve.

How was Mesoraco a reach? Granted, he was a riskier pick and is going to take longer to develop than the classis college pitcher everyone is clamoring for, but all the sources I saw had him listed as at least a mid first rounder.

M2
10-14-2007, 02:04 AM
I don't agree there. When Drew Stubbs finished '06 in Billings, his stock had dropped. The same rule doesn't apply for Mesoraco. Like you said, Mesoraco is a high school catcher from the weeds of Pennsylvania. We drafted him because of what he could be 4-5 years from now, not what he is now. Did you expect him to rake in his first couple hundred at bats...with two hurt thumbs?

I didn't expect him to do squat in his first 200 ABs no matter what because I know what to expect from HS catchers from the boonies. Obviously they drafted him based on what he could be in 4-5 years (more like 6-7, but either one works for the purposes of this discussion). That's the reward part of the equation. Once again, I get back to risk, which MLB scouting, classically speaking, doesn't get. That's why they call it risk/reward.


How was Mesoraco a reach? Granted, he was a riskier pick and is going to take longer to develop than the classis college pitcher everyone is clamoring for, but all the sources I saw had him listed as at least a mid first rounder.

He was a reach because high school catchers are generally the riskiest of all picks. He was a reach because he's played against extremely poor competition. He was a reach because players at his position take a long time to develop. He was a reach because it was a case of buying a stock that you knew would immediately drop in value. That's the very definition of a reach. It may pay off years from now, but this kid was not a Jay Bruce investment.

camisadelgolf
10-14-2007, 02:45 AM
He was a reach because high school catchers are generally the riskiest of all picks. He was a reach because he's played against extremely poor competition. He was a reach because players at his position take a long time to develop. He was a reach because it was a case of buying a stock that you knew would immediately drop in value. That's the very definition of a reach. It may pay off years from now, but this kid was not a Jay Bruce investment.

My definition of a reach is when someone is drafted much higher than he normally would've been. Devin Mesoraco had reportedly sky-rocketed up several teams' draft boards, and everywhere I read, Mesoraco would've been taken in the mid-to-late first round. I don't think he was a reach at all--I just think it was a case of supply and demand. For catchers, the demand is high, the supply is low, and therefore, they are often drafted higher than players at other positions.

M2
10-14-2007, 02:54 AM
My definition of a reach is when someone is drafted much higher than he normally would've been. Devin Mesoraco had reportedly sky-rocketed up several teams' draft boards, and everywhere I read, Mesoraco would've been taken in the mid-to-late first round. I don't think he was a reach at all--I just think it was a case of supply and demand. For catchers, the demand is high, the supply is low, and therefore, they are often drafted higher than players at other positions.

Oh I know where Mesoraco rated in mid-June. Once again, we're talking about an industry that doesn't understand risk. When you're in that kind of industry, then you tend to do a lot of screwy things. If the industry did understand risk, then Mesoraco would have been a much lower picks, thus the reach part.

Superdude
10-14-2007, 02:56 AM
but this kid was not a Jay Bruce investment.

That's the ultimate argument ending statement. Chuck talks to Jay Bruce. :thumbup: if anyone got that.

camisadelgolf
10-14-2007, 02:59 AM
Oh I know where Mesoraco rated in mid-June. Once again, we're talking about an industry that doesn't understand risk. When you're in that kind of industry, then you tend to do a lot of screwy things. If the industry did understand risk, then Mesoraco would have been a much lower picks, thus the reach part.

The Reds knew who they wanted, and they were pretty sure he wouldn't've been around if they waited until their next pick. Personally, I'm very happy with the Reds first choices from the 2007 draft.

M2
10-14-2007, 03:12 AM
The Reds knew who they wanted, and they were pretty sure he wouldn't've been around if they waited until their next pick.

I'm sure he wouldn't have been around given the risk oblivious nature of the business.

But, to paraphrase a certain GM in Oakland, just because no one else bothers to think about these things doesn't mean you shouldn't.

camisadelgolf
10-14-2007, 02:34 PM
I'm sure he wouldn't have been around given the risk oblivious nature of the business.

But, to paraphrase a certain GM in Oakland, just because no one else bothers to think about these things doesn't mean you shouldn't.

Actually, I think it was the Reds' knowledge of the business that caused them to draft Mesoraco so highly. When Wayne Krivsky's are appropriately regarded as doing a poor job of drafting, that's when I'll start to criticize them.

M2
10-14-2007, 02:54 PM
Actually, I think it was the Reds' knowledge of the business that caused them to draft Mesoraco so highly. When Wayne Krivsky's are appropriately regarded as doing a poor job of drafting, that's when I'll start to criticize them.

So the way to beat the risk oblivious is by being more risk oblivious?

dougdirt
10-14-2007, 03:05 PM
So the way to beat the risk oblivious is by being more risk oblivious?

The way to beat the risk is to take the best player available that you can sign (which takes Porcello off the board).

Catchers, of any kind, are the riskiest picks you can make in the draft.... but I don't advocate passing up on a larger talent simply because he plays catcher and they historically haven't panned out.

M2
10-14-2007, 03:31 PM
The way to beat the risk is to take the best player available that you can sign (which takes Porcello off the board).

Catchers, of any kind, are the riskiest picks you can make in the draft.... but I don't advocate passing up on a larger talent simply because he plays catcher and they historically haven't panned out.

So don't learn from history. You won't find me getting behind that notion.

As for when to take a catcher, IMO the main question to ask is where would we be drafting this guy if he were an OF. I'd be willing to reach a bit more since he plays behind the plate, but not overly much. Joe Mauer was still a top 10 pick in the OF (possibly still a #1). Mesoraco would have been borderline to get taken high enough to keep him out of college.

dougdirt
10-14-2007, 03:46 PM
So don't learn from history. You won't find me getting behind that notion.

As for when to take a catcher, IMO the main question to ask is where would we be drafting this guy if he were an OF. I'd be willing to reach a bit more since he plays behind the plate, but not overly much. Joe Mauer was still a top 10 pick in the OF (possibly still a #1). Mesoraco would have been borderline to get taken high enough to keep him out of college.

Taking the best player available is not learning from history? I don't care that the kid was a catcher or if he were a right fielder.... if the Reds had him #1 on their board, then thats who I wanted them to take.

M2
10-14-2007, 04:50 PM
Taking the best player available is not learning from history? I don't care that the kid was a catcher or if he were a right fielder.... if the Reds had him #1 on their board, then thats who I wanted them to take.

He shouldn't have been #1 on the board. They overvalued him because of his position. That's the point. Taking the best available only means something if you can actually identify best available.

I'll leave the voodoo of whether he'll turn out to be the best available five years from now, though I can pretty much assure you other later picks will have turned out better. What I can tell you in concrete terms, is he's already dropped from best available a scant four months later.

I'll bring up Bruce again, he got selected at #12 and has consistently risen in value. That's the history I'd prefer to learn from.

dougdirt
10-14-2007, 04:53 PM
He shouldn't have been #1 on the board. They overvalued him because of his position. That's the point. Taking the best available only means something if you can actually identify best available.

I'll leave the voodoo of whether he'll turn out to be the best available five years from now, though I can pretty much assure you other later picks will have turned out better. What I can tell you in concrete terms, is he's already dropped from best available a scant four months later.


And in 12 months he could look like the best guy on anyones board.

M2
10-14-2007, 05:12 PM
And in 12 months he could look like the best guy on anyones board.

And there's proof that you can rationalize anything with a nebulous future.

If Mesoraco's still struggling next year I'm sure we'll hear about how everyone knew he'd be in for a difficult adjustment and that his struggles were always part of the plan, completely overlooking that the argument against him at the outset was that he was a raw, vastly inexperienced kid who was bound to struggle for an extended period of time, that all of that up front risk wasn't worth such an uncertain reward on a #15 pick.

lollipopcurve
10-14-2007, 05:36 PM
And in 12 months he could look like the best guy on anyones board.

Would be nice, but it won't happen. I've butted heads with M2 a lot on draft stuff, but in this case I think he's right that the Reds reached a little with this pick, based on his position. Personally, I was OK with it, given that for once the Reds had multiple high picks, thanks to FA compensation. Meso-man was a relatively conservative investment, in my opinion, at 1.4 million, when you're talking about trying to fill a position that's dreadfully thin throughout baseball with a player who looks to have a high ceiling there. Had the Reds had their usual 1 pick per round, it may have made more sense to get a college catcher later on.

camisadelgolf
10-14-2007, 05:44 PM
Would be nice, but it won't happen. I've butted heads with M2 a lot on draft stuff, but in this case I think he's right that the Reds reached a little with this pick, based on his position. Personally, I was OK with it, given that for once the Reds had multiple high picks, thanks to FA compensation. Meso-man was a relatively conservative investment, in my opinion, at 1.4 million, when you're talking about trying to fill a position that's dreadfully thin throughout baseball with a player who looks to have a high ceiling there. Had the Reds had their usual 1 pick per round, it may have made more sense to get a college catcher later on.

I think that's perfectly reasonable, but like I said, I'm in no position to criticize the two drafts Wayne Krivsky has had thus far. If it were Jim Bowden in his last years with the Reds, I'd criticize the pick to no end, however.

M2
10-14-2007, 05:47 PM
Would be nice, but it won't happen. I've butted heads with M2 a lot on draft stuff, but in this case I think he's right that the Reds reached a little with this pick, based on his position. Personally, I was OK with it, given that for once the Reds had multiple high picks, thanks to FA compensation. Meso-man was a relatively conservative investment, in my opinion, at 1.4 million, when you're talking about trying to fill a position that's dreadfully thin throughout baseball with a player who looks to have a high ceiling there. Had the Reds had their usual 1 pick per round, it may have made more sense to get a college catcher later on.

Fair points about the investment amount and the extra picks.

For the record, I don't hate the Mesoraco pick. I wouldn't have made it as he'd have failed my "What if was an OF?" sniff test, but I can appreciate the urge to bring in a high reward catching prospect.