PDA

View Full Version : Jim Callis Espn Chat



New Fever
01-02-2008, 03:22 PM
He just said they ranked the organizations farm systems already for the handbook and he gave the top 5: 1. Rays
2. Red Sox
3. Reds
4. Rangers
5. Yankees

Interesting that the Reds are the only NL team in the top 5.

RedsManRick
01-02-2008, 03:25 PM
It must really stink to be an Orioles or Blue Jays fan. I would be so depressed if I had to beat the Yankees or Sox to make the playoffs.

It would be interesting to see how the list would look if you ignore the top 5 prospects in each system. The ongoing prospect poll shows me that we've got about twice as many "legitimate" prospects than we had just a few years back.

New Fever
01-02-2008, 03:41 PM
Yes, Callis also said in the chat that you have to high ceiling talent and depth to rank high on the list.

princeton
01-02-2008, 04:14 PM
Good. BA rankings help GMs to explain their trades to the sportswriters and ultimately to the fanbase.

congratulations to the Reds. Now, trade a lot of these guys away and get better.

lollipopcurve
01-02-2008, 04:25 PM
Now, trade a lot of these guys away

Some, not a lot -- you have to have the young talent infusing the major league club too.

Keep some, trade some. If you gut it, you waste it.

HBP
01-02-2008, 04:31 PM
Yes, Callis also said in the chat that you have to high ceiling talent and depth to rank high on the list.

As well as having a team nickname that starts with R ;)

princeton
01-02-2008, 05:24 PM
Some, not a lot -- you have to have the young talent infusing the major league club too.

Keep some, trade some. If you gut it, you waste it.

Rays and Brewers and Pirates sat on theirs, managed to get mediocre or to stay dreadful.

trust your depth. Deal from off the top. Don't sit around and wait for the Yugos to come off the line.

dougdirt
01-02-2008, 06:30 PM
Rays and Brewers and Pirates sat on theirs, managed to get mediocre or to stay dreadful.

trust your depth. Deal from off the top. Don't sit around and wait for the Yugos to come off the line.

Yeah, those Brewers are really hating Prince Fielder, Yo Gallardo and Ryan Braun these days.....

As for the Rays, give them just a little more time. They have got something brewing down there.

As for the Pirates.... they just seem to have problems doing anything right.

TRF
01-02-2008, 06:33 PM
As for the Pirates.... they just seem to have problems doing anything right.


So do the Reds. 8 years and not a single draft pick in the starting 8. Votto will likely be the first since... Dunn? Is that right?

ugh.

dougdirt
01-02-2008, 06:43 PM
So do the Reds. 8 years and not a single draft pick in the starting 8. Votto will likely be the first since... Dunn? Is that right?

ugh.

There were some really ugly drafts in there, 2002 had Votto and Denorfia for position guys and Calvin Medlock for relievers (granted he isn't with us anymore). Jimbo had some wonderful drafts there toward the end of his regime.

KoryMac5
01-02-2008, 07:58 PM
I think the Pirates unfortunately have the same kind of luck we had with the health of young pitchers.

princeton
01-03-2008, 09:34 AM
Yeah, those Brewers are really hating Prince Fielder, Yo Gallardo and Ryan Braun these days.....

As for the Rays, give them just a little more time. They have got something brewing down there.

As for the Pirates.... they just seem to have problems doing anything right.

you're constantly trying to explain why mediocrity and failure are acceptable. You're just different than those of us that want a champion.

Dodgers have long had a very deep farm system. They've clung to it with a death grip, and it has not resurrected them. Devil Rays will be the same way.

The 2000-1 Reds had a very highly regarded system, and refused to use it to acquire pitching. I don't want to do that again.

you really only play about 18, 20 guys. If you're really as deep as the Reds look, then you can't play 'em all. use that depth to find 18 or 20 guys that go together well.

edabbs44
01-03-2008, 09:54 AM
Yes, Callis also said in the chat that you have to high ceiling talent and depth to rank high on the list.

Though I am curious how the system will be ranked next year if the top 4 are not eligible. While there may be depth, I'm curious as to how high the ceilings are after the big names. I don't think things are as rosy.

A lot can happen this season, hopefully most guys in the 2nd tier keep improving.

Triples
01-03-2008, 10:38 AM
There were some really ugly drafts in there, 2002 had Votto and Denorfia for position guys and Calvin Medlock for relievers (granted he isn't with us anymore). Jimbo had some wonderful drafts there toward the end of his regime.

All the more amazing that in just a 3 or 4 years the Reds have gone from farm system nearly devoid of talent to the top 5.

lollipopcurve
01-03-2008, 10:46 AM
All the more amazing that in just a 3 or 4 years the Reds have gone from farm system nearly devoid of talent to the top 5.

Terry Reynolds nailed two first-rounders, Almaraz had deposited Cueto before hightailing it to Atlanta, an old comp pick made a steady rise to AAA (Votto) and Buckley had a couple of solid drafts providing depth.

This year they have another high pick (#7) -- it's a pretty critical one, in my estimation, as they won't have any comp picks or a second rounder.

princeton
01-03-2008, 12:00 PM
I am curious how the system will be ranked next year if the top 4 are not eligible.


I'm not. We'll drop.

if 2 or 3 pitchers establish themselves as effective major leaguers even as we drop, it's a price that I'm thrilled to pay.

lollipopcurve
01-03-2008, 12:12 PM
I'm not. We'll drop.

if 2 or 3 pitchers establish themselves as effective major leaguers even as we drop, it's a price that I'm thrilled to pay.

It's as inevitable as night following day. The top guys get traded or graduate. You may have a run of 2-3 years while the big names close in on the majors, but after that you sink back. Were Bailey, Bruce and Cueto to be in AAA in 08, the Reds would be a top 3 system again next year -- but I'm pretty sure they'll cross the Ohio in time to lose their rookie eligibility.

We should be glad the system has ascended so high and realize that dropping well back in the pack does not signal a collapse.

dougdirt
01-03-2008, 01:08 PM
you're constantly trying to explain why mediocrity and failure are acceptable. You're just different than those of us that want a champion.
What? I want a winner on the field. I don't go to 25+ games a year simply to watch us lose. I love the game of baseball and I love my Reds. I don't think I have once said anywhere that mediocrity and failure should be accepted. Just because we have a differing view on how to use a farm system doesn't mean that I think we should be ok with losing.



Dodgers have long had a very deep farm system. They've clung to it with a death grip, and it has not resurrected them. Devil Rays will be the same way.
The Dodgers have problems because they don't play their top talent and instead pay millions and millions of dollars to guys like Nomar to play first base rather than let a guy like James Loney play.

As for the Devil Rays.... any other division in baseball and I think they are serious contenders in 2009 and make a solid run in 2008.




The 2000-1 Reds had a very highly regarded system, and refused to use it to acquire pitching. I don't want to do that again.
2000-2001 wasn't quite where its at right now in terms of top end talent and being at AAA or higher like all of the guys are right now.



you really only play about 18, 20 guys. If you're really as deep as the Reds look, then you can't play 'em all. use that depth to find 18 or 20 guys that go together well.
I agree. I am not against trading anyone in the system not named Jay Bruce. However it would take quite a bit to get Homer Bailey or Johnny Cueto. I also am not going to sacrifice the farm for 1 pitcher either though.

gedred69
01-03-2008, 06:38 PM
What? I want a winner on the field. I don't go to 25+ games a year simply to watch us lose. I love the game of baseball and I love my Reds. I don't think I have once said anywhere that mediocrity and failure should be accepted. Just because we have a differing view on how to use a farm system doesn't mean that I think we should be ok with losing.


The Dodgers have problems because they don't play their top talent and instead pay millions and millions of dollars to guys like Nomar to play first base rather than let a guy like James Loney play.

As for the Devil Rays.... any other division in baseball and I think they are serious contenders in 2009 and make a solid run in 2008.



2000-2001 wasn't quite where its at right now in terms of top end talent and being at AAA or higher like all of the guys are right now.


I agree. I am not against trading anyone in the system not named Jay Bruce. However it would take quite a bit to get Homer Bailey or Johnny Cueto. I also am not going to sacrifice the farm for 1 pitcher either though.

Pretty good comeback! Ditto on trading Bailey or Cueto, I'm sick of hearing how the Reds haven't developed any pitchers. Refresh my memory. Who were the hotshots in '00-'01 the Reds wouldn't trade?

TRF
01-04-2008, 12:09 AM
Pretty good comeback! Ditto on trading Bailey or Cueto, I'm sick of hearing how the Reds haven't developed any pitchers. Refresh my memory. Who were the hotshots in '00-'01 the Reds wouldn't trade?

Mosely, Howington spring to mind. Aramboles had hype.

princeton
01-04-2008, 08:55 AM
2000-2001 wasn't quite where its at right now in terms of top end talent and being at AAA or higher like all of the guys are right now.

you're constantly trying to explain why mediocrity and failure are acceptable

edabbs44
01-04-2008, 09:04 AM
Mosely, Howington spring to mind. Aramboles had hype.

Don't forget Rob Bell.

TRF
01-04-2008, 11:50 AM
Don't forget Rob Bell.

Bell is the exception. traded waaaaay high on him for a return of Mateo and EE. That's a good haul for him

dougdirt
01-04-2008, 12:33 PM
you're constantly trying to explain why mediocrity and failure are acceptable

What are you talking about? Somehow me saying the system didn't have the same kind of top end talent that we do now means I think failure is acceptable? That is a horrible conclusion from what I said. Simply because I don't want to trade every prospect we have for Erik Bedard doesn't mean I am fine with losing.

Cooper
01-06-2008, 11:33 AM
I think Princeton has a point ....95% of these guys (probably higher) won't make it to the bigs...and their current value is probably at an all-time high.

A 22 year old 1st baseman vs a 24 year old 1st baseman with the same stats and the same classification- the 22 year old is probably worth 10 times more than the 24 year old. I think the point is this -you better figure things out quick and sell players off when their value is at their highest. Figuring this out is brutal -it would be nice if the team had a systematic way of measuring things to find out true value -my guess is they take a lot of WAG hoping that they are correct (that's what the rule 5 pick up looked like).

I just don't believe the Reds have a way in which they measure things to find out the optimum value of their prospects. I would guess there's a lot of talk, but not a lot parameters in place to help their staff figure things out. The Red Sox are years ahead of everyone else in this regard. I wish the Reds would do the same.

Steve4192
01-06-2008, 12:19 PM
I think Princeton has a point ....95% of these guys (probably higher) won't make it to the bigs...and their current value is probably at an all-time high.

Yep.

The very nature of minor league prospects is that most of them eventually fail. The smart teams make the hard decisions about which guys the REALLY want to keep and make the rest of 'em available in exchange for proven major league talent. For every one that reaches his potential and becomes a key contributor for his new team, three or four will wash out completely. Better to have those guys wash out in someone else's system. Trade 'em while their value is high rather than waiting for the Peter Principal to kick in and wipe out their value completely.

The Yankees and Braves used to be masters at identifying which prospects they want to keep (Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Chipper, Glavine, Smoltz) and using the rest of 'em as trade bait. While they did lose the occasional Jason Schmidt, they had plenty of pennants to wipe their tears away and help keep them warm at night.

jojo
01-06-2008, 01:20 PM
I think Princeton has a point ....95% of these guys (probably higher) won't make it to the bigs...and their current value is probably at an all-time high.

A 22 year old 1st baseman vs a 24 year old 1st baseman with the same stats and the same classification- the 22 year old is probably worth 10 times more than the 24 year old. I think the point is this -you better figure things out quick and sell players off when their value is at their highest. Figuring this out is brutal -it would be nice if the team had a systematic way of measuring things to find out true value -my guess is they take a lot of WAG hoping that they are correct (that's what the rule 5 pick up looked like).

I just don't believe the Reds have a way in which they measure things to find out the optimum value of their prospects. I would guess there's a lot of talk, but not a lot parameters in place to help their staff figure things out. The Red Sox are years ahead of everyone else in this regard. I wish the Reds would do the same.

I think you make some good points.

Here's the thing though. It's become chic recently to hammer Doug about context. But here's a little context IMHO...the majority of A/B+ prospects that the Reds are "sitting on" actually fit needs for the Reds 25 man roster. I don't consider factoring them into your long range plans to be rationalizing mediocrity and failure. Once a position player reaches the prospect status of Bruce or even Votto, the risk really is overstated-in all likelihood they are going to contribute at the major league level. The only question is will a guy like Bruce be truly elite or will he simply be a regular (which in and of itself is valuable over 6 yrs).

Prf15
01-06-2008, 01:28 PM
I'm not. We'll drop.

if 2 or 3 pitchers establish themselves as effective major leaguers even as we drop, it's a price that I'm thrilled to pay.

I agree 100%.

I would love Cueto, Bailey, Volquez, and Maloney all turn out to be proven Major Leaguers 6 years from now but hell, I would take 2 of 4.

dougdirt
01-06-2008, 01:30 PM
I agree 100%.

I would love Cueto, Bailey, Volquez, and Maloney all turn out to be proven Major Leaguers 6 years from now but hell, I would take 2 of 4.

I think you will not have a problem seeing at the very least 2 of them be solid contributors to the major league team.

princeton
01-06-2008, 02:54 PM
I agree 100%.

I would love Cueto, Bailey, Volquez, and Maloney all turn out to be proven Major Leaguers 6 years from now but hell, I would take 2 of 4.

agreed.

princeton
01-06-2008, 02:59 PM
I just don't believe the Reds have a way in which they measure things to find out the optimum value of their prospects.

maybe. We'll have to see. Probably the best support of your statement is the report that we got that the Reds are highly enamored of Johnny Cueto-- to the point that it was a sticking point over trading for Haren. that's troubling. Cueto will need to become a significant player to justify the support

dougdirt
01-06-2008, 03:09 PM
maybe. We'll have to see. Probably the best support of your statement is the report that we got that the Reds are highly enamored of Johnny Cueto-- to the point that it was a sticking point over trading for Haren. that's troubling. Cueto will need to become a significant player to justify the support

Nowhere has it said that he was the sticking point. It said that the Reds chose to keep a package including Cueto. That could mean he was the main guy or that he was a secondary guy. We don't know.

jojo
01-06-2008, 03:39 PM
maybe. We'll have to see. Probably the best support of your statement is the report that we got that the Reds are highly enamored of Johnny Cueto-- to the point that it was a sticking point over trading for Haren. that's troubling. Cueto will need to become a significant player to justify the support

I don't think we can treat rumors as fact. Also, even if Cueto was a sticking point in a Haren negotiation, we have no idea what the remaining parameters were of such a hypothetical deal. Given the haul that Beane got for Haren, the Reds shouldn't have topped Arizona's offer.

Cedric
01-06-2008, 04:29 PM
Good. BA rankings help GMs to explain their trades to the sportswriters and ultimately to the fanbase.

congratulations to the Reds. Now, trade a lot of these guys away and get better.

If Wayne=Terry Ryan than I think we have a mixed bag. Minnesota turned around their franchise by playing youngsters and also knowing when to get rid of them (AJ). Not really anything novel, hopefully Krivsky has that same knack.

Hopefully Wayne gets rid of the only flaw I saw with Terry Ryan. Refusing to take risks with position players. And that Juan Castro thing.

Mario-Rijo
01-06-2008, 04:56 PM
If Wayne=Terry Ryan than I think we have a mixed bag. Minnesota turned around their franchise by playing youngsters and also knowing when to get rid of them (AJ). Not really anything novel, hopefully Krivsky has that same knack.

Hopefully Wayne gets rid of the only flaw I saw with Terry Ryan. Refusing to take risks with position players. And that Juan Castro thing.

What kind of risks?

Cedric
01-06-2008, 11:12 PM
What kind of risks?

I love Terry Ryan so I'm not bashing him overall. Look at his track record though and he has at times been guilty of either holding onto field prospects too long, or not playing them soon enough. He was extra cautious with field prospects later in his career and I think that hampered the Twins at times.

Mario-Rijo
01-08-2008, 12:28 AM
I love Terry Ryan so I'm not bashing him overall. Look at his track record though and he has at times been guilty of either holding onto field prospects too long, or not playing them soon enough. He was extra cautious with field prospects later in his career and I think that hampered the Twins at times.

It's certainly something to be keeping on eye on. If I had to lean one way or another right now (I really don't but...), I'd say he does that.

M2
01-08-2008, 11:21 AM
2000-2001 wasn't quite where its at right now in terms of top end talent and being at AAA or higher like all of the guys are right now.

That's highly revisionist. The Reds were rated #3 heading into 2001 and will be rated #3 heading into 2008. While they may not be exactly the same, the 2008 group projects no stronger than the 2001 did on paper.

Insisting that this crop of youngsters is naturally better is just a neat way of not learning from recent history. What the Reds need to do is identify the absolute keepers and the kids who should be traded while they've got top markets. Imagine what might have happened if the JimBo regime had moved Gookie Dawkins instead of Mike Cameron. Imagine what Austin Kearns and Ty Howington might have fetched. That could have gone a long from transforming the Reds from also rans to a winning ballclub.

The Reds would be well advised to try to know now what will be known by all later. Being ranked #3 doesn't mean the future is assured, it means the club has a hand of cards to play.

dougdirt
01-08-2008, 11:52 AM
That's highly revisionist. The Reds were rated #3 heading into 2001 and will be rated #3 heading into 2008. While they may not be exactly the same, the 2008 group projects no stronger than the 2001 did on paper.

Insisting that this crop of youngsters is naturally better is just a neat way of not learning from recent history. What the Reds need to do is identify the absolute keepers and the kids who should be traded while they've got top markets. Imagine what might have happened if the JimBo regime had moved Gookie Dawkins instead of Mike Cameron. Imagine what Austin Kearns and Ty Howington might have fetched. That could have gone a long from transforming the Reds from also rans to a winning ballclub.

The Reds would be well advised to try to know now what will be known by all later. Being ranked #3 doesn't mean the future is assured, it means the club has a hand of cards to play.

Its not being revisionist at all. Right now the Reds have 4 top end prospects, 3 of which have had a lot of success in AAA and then Johnny Cueto who has very limited success in AAA.

Gookie Dawkins was a slap hitting SS with a 100 at bat stretch where he hit well. Heck, only 1 season did the guy OPS over .700 before he turned 25. Drew Henson was coming off a .750 OPS season at AA. Kearns was coming off a great season in 2000, but it was in Low A and then the next year as a 21 year old he had a .780 OPS in AA. Solid, but not mind blowing. Adam Dunn was coming off a solid season in 2000 in Dayton, but again, it was a solid season in low A. Ed Yarnall was a 24 year old pitcher in AAA with bad walk rates and not the best strikeout rates. Rob Bell was coming off a solid AA season. Jackson Melian was coming off a sub .700 OPS in 2000, albeit in AA at 20. Dane Sardinha hadn't played a game yet when he was ranked and well, he never had a season OPS over .688 in the minors. Same goes for David Espinosa.

Those were the guys rated as Top Prospects after 2000 and 2001. I don't think its revisionist at all, the guy we have now have shown very strong success in AA and in AAA. Back then there was absolutely none of that going on.

M2
01-08-2008, 12:51 PM
Its not being revisionist at all. Right now the Reds have 4 top end prospects, 3 of which have had a lot of success in AAA and then Johnny Cueto who has very limited success in AAA.

I'll get to the preposterosity of "a lot" later, but that's not the part you're being revisionist about.


Gookie Dawkins was a slap hitting SS with a 100 at bat stretch where he hit well. Heck, only 1 season did the guy OPS over .700 before he turned 25.

Gookie Dawkins was rated the #21 prospect in the minors in 2000 and he played on the Olympic winning team that season. All reports during the Jr. negotiations were that the Mariners were willing to make him the principal return in the deal. The Reds refused to discuss Dawkins and instead wound up trading Cameron. The Reds haven't had a middle IF that highly regarded since Larkin/Stillwell in the mid-80s. Either know some history or do some homework.


Drew Henson was coming off a .750 OPS season at AA. Kearns was coming off a great season in 2000, but it was in Low A and then the next year as a 21 year old he had a .780 OPS in AA. Solid, but not mind blowing. Adam Dunn was coming off a solid season in 2000 in Dayton, but again, it was a solid season in low A. Ed Yarnall was a 24 year old pitcher in AAA with bad walk rates and not the best strikeout rates. Rob Bell was coming off a solid AA season. Jackson Melian was coming off a sub .700 OPS in 2000, albeit in AA at 20. Dane Sardinha hadn't played a game yet when he was ranked and well, he never had a season OPS over .688 in the minors. Same goes for David Espinosa.

All you've done there is delve into how incredibly deep the Reds system was deemed to be at the time. You've so far listed nine kids who ranked as top 100 prospects in the 2000-2001 time period, something the current batch can't match.


Those were the guys rated as Top Prospects after 2000 and 2001. I don't think its revisionist at all, the guy we have now have shown very strong success in AA and in AAA. Back then there was absolutely none of that going on.

That's a nice artificial line you've drawn, but it's only being done in service of keeping you from considering something you don't want to consider (which of the top kids isn't a keeper). Only Votto and Maloney can claim full seasons of success in the upper minors at the moment and, all respect to those two, no one in their right mind would tell you they're better prospects than Dunn and Kearns were back in 2001. And once again, you need to look up the word "revisionist." You're panning kids universally deemed as bright prospects seven years ago. Since you tend toward enthusiasm when it comes to prospects (and I don't mean that as a criticism), I find it impossible to believe you wouldn't have been highly enthusiastic about the 2001 class had you been around at the time. For instance, a guy who still holds a candle for the now departed Miguel Perez surely wouldn't have been put off by Gookie Dawkins' 2000 season.

My suggestion is that rather than turning a critical eye toward history in an attempt to explain away why it happened, learn from history and turn that same critical eye toward the present in an effort to piece through what might be a better approach this time around.

dougdirt
01-08-2008, 01:14 PM
M2, I stand firm on what I wrote. In 2000/2001 the Reds had a very deep system based on upside but very little true production anywhere other than A ball. Kearns and Dunn were very good prospects but were still in A ball (as far as when these system rankings came out). The rest of the group was banking off of their upside (see a Drew Stubbs type from this current group of prospects) and a little production that wasn't overly impressive. Yeah, I still like Drew Stubbs a lot, but in no way would I ever not trade him. For that matter I would trade Bailey, Cueto or Votto too, in the right situations. I think the two situations as far as what is in the systems is completely different though.

M2
01-08-2008, 01:36 PM
M2, I stand firm on what I wrote. In 2000/2001 the Reds had a very deep system based on upside but very little true production anywhere other than A ball.

And I stand by what I said, in 2000/2001 you'd have had a spoon in each hand gobbling up those prospects.

Anyway, if you're willing to consider moving most of the kids on the farm, it sounds like you're more or less in line with what princeton's urging. I'm sure he'd make a few deals you wouldn't, but that's a small difference in comparison to a complete philosophical rift.

Steve4192
01-08-2008, 01:42 PM
Regardless of how this group of prospects compares to the 2000 group, there is one thing we know for certain ... most of them will never come close to reaching their potential. Chances are that a one or two will reach their ceiling, an additional two or three will become useful major leaguers, and the rest will replacement level chattel or complete washouts.

The trick is identifying the one or two studs and having to the cahones to move the rest if/when the right deal comes along. Unfortunately, the Reds chose to hold onto the entire 2000 crop only to watch the majority of them crash and burn and lose all of their trade value. I would like to see them avoid that mistake this time around.

princeton
01-08-2008, 02:19 PM
The trick is identifying the one or two studs and having to the cahones to move the rest if/when the right deal comes along.

I'm happy to move the studs, too, if it puts us in a position to contend for 2-3 years. I think that one tends to overrate one's prospects. Most people are optimists.

Steve4192
01-08-2008, 02:36 PM
I'm happy to move the studs, too, if it puts us in a position to contend for 2-3 years. I think that one tends to overrate one's prospects. Most people are optimists.

By studs I was referring to the guys who will end up being major league studs. Of course, the possibility exists that none of them will be studs or that you screw the pooch and lump a future star into the washout category and trade him away. My point is, that you just can't sit on your hands and let things play out on their own, because history has shown that the vast majority of prospects hit their peak value long before they ever step on a major league diamond.

Sure, you run the risk of trading away the wrong guys, but at some point you have to trust your scouting & development department enough to make a decision. Otherwise, you end up stuck in analysis paralysis and stand by idly as your valuable prospects turned into worthless suspects.

Mario-Rijo
01-08-2008, 03:01 PM
Regardless of how this group of prospects compares to the 2000 group, there is one thing we know for certain ... most of them will never come close to reaching their potential. Chances are that a one or two will reach their ceiling, an additional two or three will become useful major leaguers, and the rest will replacement level chattel or complete washouts.

The trick is identifying the one or two studs and having to the cahones to move the rest if/when the right deal comes along. Unfortunately, the Reds chose to hold onto the entire 2000 crop only to watch the majority of them crash and burn and lose all of their trade value. I would like to see them avoid that mistake this time around.

I'd say that's probably pretty accurate. Just my opinion but I would have to think that Bruce and Cueto are the 2 that reach their ceilings. Now just need to figure out who's left that won't be useful major leaguers and deal them.

jojo
01-08-2008, 03:48 PM
I'd say that's probably pretty accurate. Just my opinion but I would have to think that Bruce and Cueto are the 2 that reach their ceilings. Now just need to figure out who's left that won't be useful major leaguers and deal them.

The term "useful major leaguers" really needs to be specifically defined. At this point I'd suggest all of these guys (Bruce, Votto, Cueto, and Bailey) will at least be useful major leaguers. A fourth outfielder or a middle reliever is a useful major leaguer albeit neither are awe-inspiring roles for prospects some grade at the A level. Still there is value to even filling those roles at the major league level.

I think you're suggesting the Reds need to properly value the major league contributions these guys will make and keep the ones that will surpass the Reds' arbitrary threshold of acceptable performance given their prospect status (which I'm assuming most would argue is tied to their current trade value) and trade the ones that won't meet this threshold.

I know this might seem like hairsplitting to some but this really isn't a trivial exercise IMHO. Basically, what are the chances that a prospect can equal/outperform his current trade value (and I'd argue relative costs of production and implications for playoff baseball have to be considered along with risk)?

M2
01-08-2008, 04:38 PM
The term "useful major leaguers" really needs to be specifically defined. At this point I'd suggest all of these guys (Bruce, Votto, Cueto, and Bailey) will at least be useful major leaguers. A fourth outfielder or a middle reliever is a useful major leaguer albeit neither are awe-inspiring roles for prospects some grade at the A level. Still there is value to even filling those roles at the major league level.

I think you're suggesting the Reds need to properly value the major league contributions these guys will make and keep the ones that will surpass the Reds' arbitrary threshold of acceptable performance given their prospect status (which I'm assuming most would argue is tied to their current trade value) and trade the ones that won't meet this threshold.

I know this might seem like hairsplitting to some but this really isn't a trivial exercise IMHO. Basically, what are the chances that a prospect can equal/outperform his current trade value (and I'd argue relative costs of production and implications for playoff baseball have to be considered along with risk)?

Fair points. Probably the standard ought to be everyday plus player at his position or above average starter for at least a three-year stretch.

laxtonto
01-08-2008, 04:41 PM
One of the concerning points of the Reds #3 ranking is the fact that unlike Texas or even TB, the Reds are aboutot graduate a large portion of the top of the system. With Baily and Bruce's loss of prospect status the minor league sytem is set to drop back to the middle teir at best. It seems the system is top heavy and lacks overall depth

Mario-Rijo
01-08-2008, 04:47 PM
One of the concerning points of the Reds #3 ranking is the fact that unlike Texas or even TB, the Reds are aboutot graduate a large portion of the top of the system. With Baily and Bruce's loss of prospect status the minor league sytem is set to drop back to the middle teir at best. It seems the system is top heavy and lacks overall depth

Perhaps TB but I don't know how much I agree with Texas being as good. I think Texas' certainly isn't as top heavy but I question how their top 4 prospects can even come close to ours in terms of ceiling.

Mario-Rijo
01-08-2008, 04:51 PM
Fair points. Probably the standard ought to be everyday plus player at his position or above average starter for at least a three-year stretch.

What's the avg total VORP for an everyday, plus player? That would help to determine what a reasonable line is? And the same goes for pitchers.

dougdirt
01-08-2008, 04:54 PM
One of the concerning points of the Reds #3 ranking is the fact that unlike Texas or even TB, the Reds are aboutot graduate a large portion of the top of the system. With Baily and Bruce's loss of prospect status the minor league sytem is set to drop back to the middle teir at best. It seems the system is top heavy and lacks overall depth

Except thats not true at all. While it appears 'top heavy' it only seems that way because they have 4 top 30 overall prospects. Drew Stubbs, Devin Mesoraco, Todd Frazier, Matt Maloney, Josh Roenicke, Travis Wood, Danny Dorn, Adam Rosales, Juan Francisco, Kyle Lotzkar, Pedro Viola..... That sounds like pretty good depth right there and I would make an argument that any one of those guys makes other teams top 10s (for the most part).

M2
01-08-2008, 05:28 PM
What's the avg total VORP for an everyday, plus player? That would help to determine what a reasonable line is? And the same goes for pitchers.

Depends on the position. Here's the overall positional totals for 2007 (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/eqa2007.php#postot) from BBP's EQA breakdown. Obviously if you're going to be in an OF corner or at 1B, you've got to do a lot of hitting to get above the average. Defense belongs somewhere in the conversation too (I'll leave it to personal taste as to whether to use linear or cumulative weights).

As for pitchers, I'd go for something pragmatic. Ultimately you want run prevention, so pick an ERA+ to your liking (probably somewhere from 100 to 110) and go from there. If you get a three-year run better than that, you're likely to be a pretty happy camper (e.g. look at Harang from 2005-7).

princeton
01-08-2008, 05:55 PM
One of the concerning points of the Reds #3 ranking is the fact that unlike Texas or even TB, the Reds are aboutot graduate a large portion of the top of the system. With Baily and Bruce's loss of prospect status the minor league sytem is set to drop back to the middle teir at best. It seems the system is top heavy and lacks overall depth

Prospects 6-12 could be stronger, it's true. Below that, it gets relatively good again.

laxtonto
01-08-2008, 06:10 PM
It tends to happen in systems when prospects jump lvls. The bad part about it is that its going to coincide when the Reds should start making a real push. That missing lvl will either force the Reds to trade the low teir high potential guys to attempt finish filling the holes or wait a year or two and waste time on the arbitration clock of the young guys.

Top 6 guys are great, but i agree the 6-12 guys are weak and may end up all getting passed up by other prospects this year.

As far as some of them being #1 in other orginzations, maybe in ChiWS or Hou

Betterread
01-08-2008, 07:13 PM
Its great that the Reds were ranked #3 - matches the rating in 2001.
I agree with Doug that the 2008 top 5 compares favorably with the 2001 top 5. In retrospect, Henson, Sardinha and Espinosa were highly overrated by BA.

2008
1.Bruce
2.Bailey
3.Votto
4.Cueto
5.Stubbs

2001
1. Kearns
2. Dunn
3. Henson
4. Sardinha
5. Espinosa

I am concerned about the dropoff from 5 to 10. Those are the optimal players to trade - not your top guys but still very attractive to other organizations.

Aronchis
01-08-2008, 07:32 PM
I have heard the Bailey era group being mentioned as a historical group in prospectdom.

It will probably be awhile before the Reds get a such a haul again.

jojo
01-08-2008, 09:19 PM
What's the avg total VORP for an everyday, plus player? That would help to determine what a reasonable line is? And the same goes for pitchers.

I back engineered BP's VORP formula back in the day (it must've been a rainy day) because I was wondering about the difference between league average and replacement level. Below is the VORP generated by being league average offensively at each position (assuming 600 plate appearances) for the 2006 season:



POS League VORP
C AL 26
C NL 31
1b AL 25
1b NL 29
2b AL 14
2b NL 15
3b AL 17
3b NL 25
ss AL 14
ss NL 10
LF AL 19
LF NL 25
CF AL 14
CF NL 11
RF AL 25
RF NL 24
DH AL 20
DH NL 17
PH AL 0
PH NL 13
Check of formula
Player BP Me
05Dunn 45 46
06Dunn 24 25
06Ross 22 22


So if an outfield prospect simply became a league average right field bat, he'd be good for roughly 2.5 wins over replacement over the course of a full season. Replacement level defense is essentially neutral so that prospect's worth would increase further if he was a plus defender or decrease if he was a minus defender when considering his overall value.

Wins are roughly worth $4M right now so assuming the hypothetical prospect was a league average RF bat and a neutral defender (overall value equals 25 runs or 2.5 wins over replacement), his production would be worth roughly $10M. At league minimum, he's a bargain even though from our view as fans, he might be considered a disappointment.

Cedric
01-08-2008, 09:40 PM
That's highly revisionist. The Reds were rated #3 heading into 2001 and will be rated #3 heading into 2008. While they may not be exactly the same, the 2008 group projects no stronger than the 2001 did on paper.

Insisting that this crop of youngsters is naturally better is just a neat way of not learning from recent history. What the Reds need to do is identify the absolute keepers and the kids who should be traded while they've got top markets. Imagine what might have happened if the JimBo regime had moved Gookie Dawkins instead of Mike Cameron. Imagine what Austin Kearns and Ty Howington might have fetched. That could have gone a long from transforming the Reds from also rans to a winning ballclub.

The Reds would be well advised to try to know now what will be known by all later. Being ranked #3 doesn't mean the future is assured, it means the club has a hand of cards to play.

Of course you are dead on that the Reds need to identify the keepers and trade away the hype. I don't think Doug was advising anything other than that. Unless I'm wrong I think he was talking about the top end talent and even at that time none of those players had the raw talent and production that the top five has now.

Look at the BA top 5 from 2001 and then look at it to the group we have now and it's really not even close. Henson was Yankee/Wolverine hype with raw talent and not much production. Sardinha and Espinoza were completely hype.

Only one player in the current top five is lacking production and is rated more on ceiling. Three of the top five in 01 were almost complete hype.

I'd suggest that if Maloney was #5 like he should be this wouldn't even be a question. Not even mentioning that the 01 class wasn't diverse at the top like this year. I think you both have good points, just maybe Doug didn't come clear that he was talking about top end ready to produce talent. He said that and by any measure he's right , IMO.

11larkin11
01-09-2008, 11:50 PM
Lotzkar, Mesoraco, Stubbs, Frazier lead the next stardom group with Soto, Waring, and Wood on the hump.