PDA

View Full Version : Redszone Community Prospect Vote #19



dougdirt
12-19-2007, 11:27 PM
Vote for the player who you think is the Reds #19 prospect (the best prospect who is not yet on the list). We will go with this as far as you guys want to take it.

I will post a new list every 2 days with 10-15 options to vote on.

If you feel like making an argument on why a guy should be voted here, feel free to vote and state why you voted for that player.

If there is someone that is not currently listed as an option to vote on, vote for 'other' then just state who you want to vote for in the thread.

If there is anyone you would like to see as an option on the next poll, just say so and if they garner enough support, they will be placed on the next poll. Guys with the lowest amount of votes will usually be removed for the next few guys who were talked about in the previous thread.


Prospect 1 - Jay Bruce
Prospect 2 - Homer Bailey
Prospect 3 - Johnny Cueto
Prospect 4 - Joey Votto
Prospect 5 - Todd Frazier
Prospect 6 - Drew Stubbs
Prospect 7 - Matt Maloney
Prospect 8 - Josh Roenicke
Prospect 9 - Travis Wood
Prospect 10 - Devin Mesoraco
Prospect 11 - Kyle Lotzkar
Prospect 12 - Danny Dorn
Prospect 13 - Sean Watson
Prospect 14 - Carlos Fisher
Prospect 15 - Juan Francisco
Prospect 16 - Neftali Soto
Prospect 17 - Brandon Waring
Prospect 18 - Adam Rosales

mlbfan30
12-19-2007, 11:36 PM
Vote Pellend over Violo, otherwise both will lose to Thompson.....
For those who think Thompson is better anyway, if you look at the chance of having a positive impact to the team, it has to be Pellend.
Thompson pitched in A+ and projects to be a 5th guy at best.
Pellend pitched in AAA and improved tremendously with his control after being switched to a reliever. He has a good chance to help the Reds next year.
Violo pitched in AA and was very good. Violo had better stats and might be better but the only reason why he's below Pellend is because he most likely won't help next year.

I think that once it gets down to the lower end of prospects, such as around 20, it's better to rank players on their chance at helping the ML team over guys who are at the lower level but might have more potential.

dougdirt
12-19-2007, 11:41 PM
I don't think the fact that one can help next year should be something to rank a player higher because of.

*BaseClogger*
12-19-2007, 11:44 PM
I'll take a #5 starter over a relief pitcher any day of the week

mlbfan30
12-20-2007, 12:01 AM
1 extra year means 1 more year where the prospect can do bad or do good. It's the risk in prospects. At this point in the rankings, I'd rather take prospects that have less risk to never make the majors.
Thompson is just so far from actually being an ML players. It's far more likely that he'll be released due to the Rule 5, be a minor league FA, or just stop playing than actually playing in MLB. Violo's first year playing for a minor league team was last year, and he's pitched 19 innings in AA. Pellend pitched very well in AAA as a reliever. Both are the same age.

Kc61
12-20-2007, 12:22 AM
Anyone who won't vote for a good relief prospect should be required to watch some tapes of the 2007 pitching performance of the Reds bullpen.

dougdirt
12-20-2007, 12:25 AM
Anyone who won't vote for a relief pitcher should be required to watch tapes of Mike Stanton and Gary Majewski pitching last year.

Inability by the Reds to put together a decent bullpen doesn't make them any more or less valuable. They are what they are. Guys that pitch about 3-4 innings a week. The impact that they make, even on the positive side of things is very limited.

*BaseClogger*
12-20-2007, 12:30 AM
Anyone who won't vote for a good relief prospect should be required to watch some tapes of the 2007 pitching performance of the Reds bullpen.

or the fourth and fifth starters, which pitched far worse than the bullpen...

*BaseClogger*
12-20-2007, 12:31 AM
so much for the group effort of comibining pellands' and violas' votes...

Kc61
12-20-2007, 12:33 AM
Inability by the Reds to put together a decent bullpen doesn't make them any more or less valuable. They are what they are. Guys that pitch about 3-4 innings a week. The impact that they make, even on the positive side of things is very limited.

A bad bullpen causes blown leads and demoralizing losses. The Reds pen last year graphically shows the impact that a weak pen can have on a team.

You choose to measure relievers by number of innings thrown. How about the number of appearances? A reliever who pitches in 65 or 70 games, sometimes for multiple innings, is a key man. A closer pitching in tight games is a key man.

If relievers are so unimportant, how come Redszoners spent so much energy focusing on the bullpen performances last year. Why was Burton's improvement so significant?

We're now in a poll voting for guys who likely will be backup infielders and long-shot major league starters. I'll take the major league ready reliever, Pelland.

*BaseClogger*
12-20-2007, 12:36 AM
We're now in a poll voting for guys who likely will be backup infielders and long-shot major league starters. I'll take the major league ready reliever, Pelland.

Major League ready does not=instant success

dougdirt
12-20-2007, 12:52 AM
A bad bullpen causes blown leads and demoralizing losses. The Reds pen last year graphically shows the impact that a weak pen can have on a team.
It still doesn't make them overly that valuable as individuals. A bad bullpen as a whole sucks, a good bullpen as a whole is awesome. 1 good bullpen arm though is only going to be used for maybe 75 innings a year. Thats about a third of real good starter and about a thirteenth of a position player. Relievers have their value, but lets not overstate how important that actually are, especially as individuals.



You choose to measure relievers by number of innings thrown. How about the number of appearances? A reliever who pitches in 65 or 70 games, sometimes for multiple innings, is a key man. A closer pitching in tight games is a key man.
Appearances mean little. If a guy gets 100 pinch hit at bats in a season it doesn't make him a really good player, even if he hit .300 in those 100 at bats. He obviously had value, but he wasn't nearly as good as an every day player hitting .275. Closers are important, but they aren't anywhere near as valuable as even a decent #3 starting pitcher. I would take a solid #3 over any closer in the history of baseball for any 1, 2, 3 or 4 year stretch. They just provide your team with a lot more.



If relievers are so unimportant, how come Redszoners spent so much energy focusing on the bullpen performances last year. Why was Burton's improvement so significant?
Because the team had a horrible bullpen. They had 2 guys that were even halfways decent and then a whole bunch of guys that were struggling big time. My point being, even for how well Burton and Weathers were for our bullpen last year, according to this article (http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2007/11/player-value-part-5-pitchers.html) Matt Belisle still was of more value to the team last year.... and he wasn't even close to being a #3 pitcher in terms of the numbers he put up (despite the fact that I feel he will rebound just fine next year).



We're now in a poll voting for guys who will be backup infielders and long-shot major league starters. I'll take the major league ready reliever, Pelland.

I don't know about that. We are talking about potential starting guys (Valaika is still there who has plenty of potential) as well as guys with high cielings but we know little about (Hildenbrant) or raw athletes with big time tools (Reed) as well as backup infielder types (Turner) and relievers (Pelland/Viola/McBeth) and swing men that could be back and forth between the pen and rotation (Lecure).

Its all a matter of opinion though.

dougdirt
12-20-2007, 12:54 AM
Oh, and while we are at it, Chris Valaika gets my vote.

AmarilloRed
12-20-2007, 01:49 AM
I simply feel that Viola is a better reliever than Pelland. He had a 3 to 1 strikeout to walk ratio, more strikeouts than innings, a 1.42 ERA, and a 1.03 Whip. It will remain to be seen how he does at AAA, but for now I have to continue voting for him over Pelland.

Blue
12-20-2007, 02:40 AM
I'm going with Daryl Thompson, the starting pitcher who is yet to throw a pitch as a 22 year old. He has a good fastball, curveball, and changeup. He also has good strikeout numbers and could very well be in AA to start the season.

And when you throw in the words "at best" when talking about projection, you're actually talking about ceiling. Thompson has the ceiling of a solid #3.

M2
12-20-2007, 10:40 AM
I'll take the major league ready reliever, Pelland.

I'd agree with you if Pelland had done anything to indicate he's major league ready. He hasn't.

podgejeff_
12-20-2007, 10:47 AM
I've voted for Thompson for a while now. His numbers don't scream #5 starter to me. They seem to say he has the upside of a #3, like mentioned above.

Either way, he's a starter option. And he's young, he has plenty of time to develop. It's possible he might end up the best asset traded in "The Trade".

texasdave
12-20-2007, 10:55 AM
Tzu-Kai Chiu.

Mario-Rijo
12-20-2007, 11:32 AM
I've voted for Thompson for a while now. His numbers don't scream #5 starter to me. They seem to say he has the upside of a #3, like mentioned above.

Either way, he's a starter option. And he's young, he has plenty of time to develop. It's possible he might end up the best asset traded in "The Trade".

Just curious, but what about him screams #3 starter? Does anyone else feel this way and would they care to base that on anything more than a gut feeling at this point. Because IMO he sure isn't pitching like a future #3 big league starter right now.

dougdirt
12-20-2007, 12:35 PM
Tzu-Kai Chiu.

I will add him to the next poll.

dougdirt
12-20-2007, 12:37 PM
Just curious, but what about him screams #3 starter? Does anyone else feel this way and would they care to base that on anything more than a gut feeling at this point. Because IMO he sure isn't pitching like a future #3 big league starter right now.

The thing that worries me about him is that coming off the shoulder injury there are varying reports of his velocity. BA said he wasn't where he was pre surgery and then milb.com said he hit 95. He wasn't hitting 95 when he was with the Nationals and pre surgery, so there is a gray area with him for me right now. Still like him as a prospect though.

*BaseClogger*
12-20-2007, 02:00 PM
Just curious, but what about him screams #3 starter? Does anyone else feel this way and would they care to base that on anything more than a gut feeling at this point. Because IMO he sure isn't pitching like a future #3 big league starter right now.

With Sarasota in 2007 Daryl Thompson had a 3.12 K/BB ratio. Homer Bailey's career minor league K/BB ratio was 2.33, and Johnny Cueto's was 4.37... How many times do we have to show you the numbers he put up in Sarasota last year?

M2
12-20-2007, 04:45 PM
With Sarasota in 2007 Daryl Thompson had a 3.12 K/BB ratio. Homer Bailey's career minor league K/BB ratio was 2.33, and Johnny Cueto's was 4.37... How many times do we have to show you the numbers he put up in Sarasota last year?

I like a good K/BB as much as anyone and Thompson certainly has a good one. The problem is even with a fairly sterling K/BB Thompson's not all that great a pitcher. He's in the strike zone, but hitters can handle him (to the tune of a 1.63 HR/9, which in the FSL is a beyond category disaster).

*BaseClogger*
12-20-2007, 05:07 PM
I like a good K/BB as much as anyone and Thompson certainly has a good one. The problem is even with a fairly sterling K/BB Thompson's not all that great a pitcher. He's in the strike zone, but hitters can handle him (to the tune of a 1.63 HR/9, which in the FSL is a beyond category disaster).

not calling you out-but could that be a flukey thing then? Can anyone check his GB rate? Seems to me that he is pretty good if he could post a low ERA with that many homers and a decently high hit rate...

Kc61
12-20-2007, 06:00 PM
Some others to consider for next poll:

Valiquette
Janish
Jose Castro
Webb
Cozart

dougdirt
12-20-2007, 06:02 PM
not calling you out-but could that be a flukey thing then? Can anyone check his GB rate? Seems to me that he is pretty good if he could post a low ERA with that many homers and a decently high hit rate...

Thompson is a flyball pitcher, big time. Last year in Sarasota he allowed just 34% of the balls in play against him to be on the ground. His HR per flyball rate is a high 9% (for the league that is extremely high).

dougdirt
12-20-2007, 06:03 PM
Some others to consider for next poll:

Valiquette
Janish
Jose Castro
Webb
Cozart

Will do.

I think its about time to start removing players who had no votes the previous poll and listing them as potential guys in the thread rather than having 8 choices getting no votes.

*BaseClogger*
12-20-2007, 06:08 PM
Thompson is a flyball pitcher, big time. Last year in Sarasota he allowed just 34% of the balls in play against him to be on the ground. His HR per flyball rate is a high 9% (for the league that is extremely high).

Thanks for the info. Was wondering where you can get GB% for minor league pitchers? Knowing he is such an extreme flyball pitcher would have influenced my vote... I was just basing my decision on the stats I can see!

dougdirt
12-20-2007, 06:15 PM
Thanks for the info. Was wondering where you can get GB% for minor league pitchers? Knowing he is such an extreme flyball pitcher would have influenced my vote... I was just basing my decision on the stats I can see!

www.firstinning.com

M2
12-20-2007, 06:27 PM
not calling you out-but could that be a flukey thing then? Can anyone check his GB rate? Seems to me that he is pretty good if he could post a low ERA with that many homers and a decently high hit rate...

Well, that's just it, he didn't post a low ERA. 3.77 might even be a tick below average in that league (certainly for someone considered to be a prospect).

Give most pitchers a 3:1 K/BB and they put a blister on a circuit (think low 2.00s). It would seem Thompson's the type that needs to be almost flawless in that area just to stay average and that makes me question whether he deserves much (or really any) fanfare.

And don't worry about the "calling you out" stuff, we're just kicking around how to interpret his performance.

*BaseClogger*
12-20-2007, 06:31 PM
Well, that's just it, he didn't post a low ERA. 3.77 might even be a tick below average in that league (certainly for someone considered to be prospect).

Give most pitchers a 3:1 K/BB and they put a blister on a circuit (think low 2.00s). It would seem Thompson's the type that needs to be almost flawless in that area just to stay average and that makes me question whether he deserves much (or really any) fanfare.

And don't worry about the "calling you out" stuff, we're just kicking around how to interpret his performance.

My mind has been somewhat changed, and although I stand by my love for starters over relievers, I'm less confident in Thompson now...

Kc61
12-20-2007, 06:34 PM
In the starting pitcher category, why is Thompson getting more votes than Sam Lecure? Lecure had an excellent strikeout rate at AA, a level higher than Thompson, and didn't give up as many long balls as Thompson did. They are both good prospects and Thompson is still quite young and promising. But I think Lecure needs a bandwagon soon in the poll.

Ron Madden
12-20-2007, 06:36 PM
I've always liked Sam LeCure. Thought he would really progress in 2007 but he got injured. :(

He had 115 K's and just 46 BB's at AA in 2007.

He could really step up in 2008.

Superdude
12-20-2007, 06:48 PM
I've always liked Sam LeCure. Thought he would really progress in 2007 but he got injured.

He had 115 K's and just 46 BB's at AA in 2007.

He could really step up in 2008.


The fact that his K rate increased in '07 was surprising, but the extra walks scare me. Judging from his stuff, in theory his K rate should fall as he moves up the ladder. He'll have to be a bit more control-oriented if he's going to be a usable starter. He's probably my next pick due to Thopmson's ridiculous HR/9 in one of the more pitcher oriented leagues in the minors.

camisadelgolf
12-20-2007, 07:22 PM
I'm going with Pedro Viola. He really needs the votes. They're both left-handed relievers, and when you compare their stats, it's very silly to me if you would even consider picking Pelland over Viola (no offense to those who voted for Pelland).

Kc61
12-20-2007, 08:29 PM
I'm going with Pedro Viola. He really needs the votes. They're both left-handed relievers, and when you compare their stats, it's very silly to me if you would even consider picking Pelland over Viola (no offense to those who voted for Pelland).


Pelland is a younger pitcher performing well at a higher level (AAA). Also has a longer track record in Reds system. Did better in Arizona Fall League.

Mario-Rijo
12-20-2007, 10:01 PM
With Sarasota in 2007 Daryl Thompson had a 3.12 K/BB ratio. Homer Bailey's career minor league K/BB ratio was 2.33, and Johnny Cueto's was 4.37... How many times do we have to show you the numbers he put up in Sarasota last year?

I think some here have answered your question, but I will answer you anyhow. The point I think is to not just look at one set of #'s, you gotta look at them all. Granted I don't know enough to make an informed decision on Thompson (I don't have a corresponding scouting report, and haven't seen him pitch), all I have is the #'s. However those #'s show he isn't dominating A+ if he were the Hits per nine wouldn't be so high unless of course the defense is atrocious which is possible.

In short I've seen the #'s and they don't add up to your claim of him being anywhere close to a #3. What I was asking for was a scouting report on him or the team to make some sense of the low K/9 and high Hits/9 for someone at that level who has much of a future.

*BaseClogger*
12-20-2007, 11:02 PM
Go Pedro Viola! :oops:

Superdude
12-21-2007, 01:42 AM
What I was asking for was a scouting report on him or the team to make some sense of the low K/9 and high Hits/9 for someone at that level who has much of a future.

What's wrong with averaging over 8K/9 in A+ after missing a whole season with injury? He's no Clayton Kershaw, but that's nothing to complain about.

And as for H/9, that's become a popular stat in this prospect ranking thing and here's my beef with it. Strikeout rate, homerun rate, and luck (or BABIP...whatever you prefer) are what make up a pitcher's hit rate. Good pitchers will generally have low H/9 and bad pitchers generally have high H/9, but there is still a large degree of variance in the stat that pitchers can't control, and the things they can control (K/9 and HR/9) can be judged in isolated terms rendering the whole stat worth nothing more than a glance in my opinion.

Thompson's problem isn't missing bats or throwing it over the plate, it's keeping the ball in the park. Hopefully last year was a fluke and his milton-esque homerun numbers will improve.

Mario-Rijo
12-21-2007, 02:08 AM
What's wrong with averaging over 8K/9 in A+ after missing a whole season with injury? He's no Clayton Kershaw, but that's nothing to complain about.

And as for H/9, that's become a popular stat in this prospect ranking thing and here's my beef with it. Strikeout rate, homerun rate, and luck (or BABIP...whatever you prefer) are what make up a pitcher's hit rate. Good pitchers will generally have low H/9 and bad pitchers generally have high H/9, but there is still a large degree of variance in the stat that pitchers can't control, and the things they can control (K/9 and HR/9) can be judged in isolated terms rendering the whole stat worth nothing more than a glance in my opinion.

Thompson's problem isn't missing bats or throwing it over the plate, it's keeping the ball in the park. Hopefully last year was a fluke and his milton-esque homerun numbers will improve.

Isn't he now 2 yrs removed from said injury?

Superdude
12-21-2007, 02:22 AM
Isn't he now 2 yrs removed from said injury?

You're probably right. I was just saying he didn't really pitch last year because of an injury at some point in his life.

Blue
12-21-2007, 07:36 PM
Better add Herrera to the list. He'll probably go #20 or #21.

Not sure about Volquez, he has made 14 MLB starts, so I doubt he qualifies.

dougdirt
12-21-2007, 08:05 PM
Better add Herrera to the list. He'll probably go #20 or #21.

Not sure about Volquez, he has made 14 MLB starts, so I doubt he qualifies.

I wouldn't rank Herrera in the top 50. 82 MPh fastball and a 55-60 MPH screwball/changeup pitch. His prospects as a major leaguer are slim and none and slim likely consists of a team being absolutely ravaged by injuries.

Blue
12-21-2007, 08:07 PM
I wouldn't rank Herrera in the top 50. 82 MPh fastball and a 55-60 MPH screwball/changeup pitch. His prospects as a major leaguer are slim and none and slim likely consists of a team being absolutely ravaged by injuries.

Yeah I didn't know anything about his stuff when I said that. Just saw the numbers. He's basically a LH Carlos Guevara.

If he's no good, then why do you like this trade so much?

dougdirt
12-21-2007, 08:09 PM
Yeah I didn't know anything about his stuff when I said that. Just saw the numbers. He's basically a LH Carlos Guevara.

If he's no good, then why do you like this trade so much?

Love Volquez. I would have done Hamilton for him straight up. However getting someone who can anchor your AA or AAA bullpen is still valuable to an organization.

Blue
12-21-2007, 08:31 PM
Love Volquez. I would have done Hamilton for him straight up. However getting someone who can anchor your AA or AAA bullpen is still valuable to an organization.

Then let me ask you this:

Where would you have ranked Hamilton on this prospect list if he were still a prospect, and where would you have ranked Volquez? I think I'd probably have Hamilton 2nd and Volquez 3rd.

Stingray
12-21-2007, 10:46 PM
I voted for Christopher Dickerson again. If it turns out Bruce needs a little more time in AAA, I'd like to see the Reds give Chris a fair chance in CF in 08. With Dunn in left and Jr in right Dickersons' CF defense would be a godsend if he can even approach his AAA offense in Cincy.

Mario-Rijo
12-22-2007, 01:08 AM
Then let me ask you this:

Where would you have ranked Hamilton on this prospect list if he were still a prospect, and where would you have ranked Volquez? I think I'd probably have Hamilton 2nd and Volquez 3rd.

I know this wasn't addressed too me but, I would have ranked him 4th just due to the injuries/addiction concerns. Without those I would have ranked him no lower than 2nd and perhaps 1st with the age factor perhaps being the #1 factor between he and Bruce.

1.) Bruce
2.) Bailey
3.) Cueto
4.) Hamilton
5.) Votto

Mario-Rijo
12-22-2007, 01:10 AM
I voted for Christopher Dickerson again. If it turns out Bruce needs a little more time in AAA, I'd like to see the Reds give Chris a fair chance in CF in 08. With Dunn in left and Jr in right Dickersons' CF defense would be a godsend if he can even approach his AAA offense in Cincy.

I would give him a shot and it sounds like Krivsky is planning on it. A platoon of he and Hopper would suit me just fine assuming Bruce isn't deemed ready. However I see Bruce being a red from opening day on and odds on favorite for NL ROY.

dougdirt
12-22-2007, 01:48 AM
Then let me ask you this:

Where would you have ranked Hamilton on this prospect list if he were still a prospect, and where would you have ranked Volquez? I think I'd probably have Hamilton 2nd and Volquez 3rd.

Bruce
Bailey
Cueto
Volquez
Hamilton
Votto

Blue
12-22-2007, 02:47 AM
Bruce
Bailey
Cueto
Volquez
Hamilton
Votto

Interesting. Thanks.