PDA

View Full Version : The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?



lollipopcurve
01-23-2008, 03:06 PM
Always like to get the draft talk started early -- we're well within six months of the Reds taking the overall #7 pick, so we're getting there...

Here's a nice list from brewerfan.net -- you can read more about each player on that site.



01 Alvarez, Pedro 3B L/R 6-2/225 Vanderbilt

02 Matusz, Brian LHP L/L 6-4/193 San Diego

03 Crow, Aaron RHP R/R 6-2/205 Missouri

04 Melville, Tim RHP R/R 6-5/205 HS

05 Hosmer, Eric 1B L/L 6-4/210 HS

06 Alonso, Yonder 1B L/R 6-2/215 Miami

07 Smoak, Justin 1B S/L 6-3/200 South Carolina

08 Cole, Gerrit RHP R/R 6-3/190 HS

09 Beckham, Tim SS R/R 6-2/190 HS

10 Meyer, Alex RHP R/R 6-7/200 HS

11 St. Clair, Cole LHP L/L 6-5/225

12 Skipworth, Kyle C L/R 6-3/195 HS

13 Martinez, Harold 3B R/R 6-3/185 HS

14 Hicks, Aaron CF S/R 6-1/160 HS

15 Friedrich, Christian LHP R/L 6-3/210 Eastern Kentucky

16 Martin, Ethan 3B R/R 6-3/200 HS

17 Ross, Tyson RHP R/R 6-6/230 California

18 Thompson, Jacob RHP R/R 6-6/200 Virginia

19 Galloway, Isaac CF R/R 6-3/190 HS

20 Crawford, Brandon SS L/R 6-2/200 UCLA

I'm a BPA guy for the most part, but I think the team is now in such a good position with young arms that it's reasonable to consider drafting a bat that could emerge while the young arms are settling into what could be a very solid rotation. In that vein, several nice LH bats may be sitting there -- Smoak, Alonso, Hosmer. Keep in mind that soon Griffey (and maybe Dunn) will be gone, and the system features only the likes of Dorn, Francisco and Fiorentino (while looking pretty good from the right side). Having big LH power in GAB is nice -- should the team snag one of these guys?

I'm very intrigued by the two shortstops -- Beckham and Crawford. Crawford is a LH bat with lots of tools coming off a bad Cape Cod summer. The recent BA college chat noted that he has something to prove this year and could move himself into the top of round 1 if he plays well at UCLA. I have to think that with the apparent lack of dominant arms at the top, hot position players are going to come off the board fast. But I'd be quite pleased if either of these shortstops ends up in Cincy (provided Crawford has at least a decent junior year and doesn't seem like a reach).

Interested in others' thoughts.

*BaseClogger*
01-23-2008, 03:15 PM
How could you forget Jay Bruce is LH?

lollipopcurve
01-23-2008, 03:18 PM
How could you forget Jay Bruce is LH?

Votto too -- I didn't forget. But beyond those guys there's not much in the system to count on.

*BaseClogger*
01-23-2008, 03:27 PM
The best strategy no matter what the situation is to take the best-available-player IMO. Hopefully we are making a move for the NL Central in the coming years and we need propects as bargaining chips more than replacements. That is where having the most valueable prospect calculates into the equation...

lollipopcurve
01-23-2008, 03:30 PM
The best strategy no matter what the situation is to take the best-available-player IMO. Hopefully we are making a move for the NL Central in the coming years and we need propects as bargaining chips more than replacements. That is where having the most valueable prospect calculates into the equation...

Can't argue with that. But folks develop favorites anyway, and in supporting them it's natural to talk about how the players might fit into the team's future, beyond being simply an asset.

Benihana
01-23-2008, 03:58 PM
I'd love to see either Brian Matusz or Tim Beckham. Either would make me very happy.

After that, I don't really have an axe to grind. Let's see what happens this (amateur) season. I think I read somewhere that Brandon Crawford may not stay at shortstop for the longterm.

princeton
01-23-2008, 04:51 PM
let's see, so far this group has picked a defensive CFer with power potential and a defensive C with power potential

I'm going out on a limb: a defensive MIer with power potential

Benihana
01-23-2008, 04:52 PM
let's see, so far this group has picked a defensive CFer with power potential and a defensive C with power potential

I'm going out on a limb: a defensive MIer with power potential

Ladies and gentleman, Tim Beckham!

lollipopcurve
01-23-2008, 05:26 PM
let's see, so far this group has picked a defensive CFer with power potential and a defensive C with power potential

I'm going out on a limb: a defensive MIer with power potential

I'd say the keyword is "athletic" not "defensive." Buckley has a history of picking middle-of-the-diamond guys (Aaron Hill, Russ Adams). Like I said, the Reds may have a shot at a very good SS prospect this time around.

RedsManRick
01-23-2008, 05:38 PM
I want a pure hitter. No more good fielders with questionable bats. Maybe I'm crazy, but I want to use my #1 picks on guys with the highest floors rather than the highest ceilings. Sure, if there's a plus defending SS/CF who has a great plate approach and can hit for power, I'd be all over it. But give me another Joey Votto over another Drew Stubbs.

Mario-Rijo
01-23-2008, 07:43 PM
I'm torn on this class. On one hand I would love to have a future stud SS, on the other I want someone who's somewhat close to contributing.

So whomever is the closest to contributing with the highest possible ceiling and floor would be my choice. My guess is that would be either Alvarez or Matusz assuming either is ava. which I doubt. If both happen to be ava. Matusz would be my selection by an ever so slight margin. Smoak would likely fall 3rd under that scenario.

Of course it's early and I haven't yet got into delving into these guys talents.

jmcclain19
01-23-2008, 07:49 PM
I heart Justin Smoak. That kid can flat out rake. But he doesn't fit the Buckley high draft pick mold of MI type.

I wouldn't be surprised if the pick is someone who is not on that list. Mesorasco & Bruce were both considered 3rd to 4th rounders at this time the year before a killer senior year made the Reds take them with the No. 1 slot.

edabbs44
01-23-2008, 08:41 PM
BPA (Best Pitcher Available). Preferably close to contributing.

princeton
01-23-2008, 09:42 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the pick is someone who is not on that list. Mesorasco & Bruce were both considered 3rd to 4th rounders at this time the year before a killer senior year made the Reds take them with the No. 1 slot.

agreed. I expect a four tool SS (doesn't hit for average) who moves up in the last month. A rich man's Paul Janish.

mth123
01-23-2008, 10:11 PM
I don't have much expertise on amateur players but assuming the top 6 on the Brewerfan list are gone when the Reds pick and based purely on the descriptions shown, I'd go with Beckham or Cole St. Clair. I like a 6-5, 225 LHP with "good stuff, a fresh arm and deception." Since he's a college guy I'd hope for a short minor league tenure.

As for Beckham, I take it that he can hit and since he is described as "silky smooth," I assume he can stay at SS long term. The Reds still need a SS of the future. The curent crop of prospect SS (Frazier, Soto, Valaika) don't really have the glove for the spot. Cozart, Janish and Jose Castro probably don't have the bat. Sleepers might be the international guy Kuo or Angel Cabrera. Castro is probably the best option at this point and he looks strictly like a number 8 hitter to me.

BoydsOfSummer
01-23-2008, 11:05 PM
Isaac Galloway.

KoryMac5
01-24-2008, 12:33 AM
This kid seems to be a fast mover, I doubt Beckham will be there when the Reds pick. I hear from several experts (BA & BP) that it will be Harold Martinez.


Harold Martinez, a 6-foot-3, 190-pound senior shortstop at Braddock High School in Miami, has blossomed into one of the most highly-touted high school prospects in the nation while drawing comparisons to Alex Rodriguez, arguably the best player in the Major Leagues.

Martinez is known for his athletic ability, fluid swing, effortless defensive ability, strong arm, and maturity. His looks and demeanor also mimic Rodriguez, who was the first overall selection of the 1993 Draft after a standout career at Westminster Christian in Miami.

BaseballAmerica and PerfectGameUSA both rank Martinez as the fifth-best high school prospect in the country.

Sounds like a solid pick we have a lot of time left in the game though.

M2
01-24-2008, 12:55 AM
In the Redszone Mock Draft Cole St. Clair was drafted (and signed) by the Red Sox last year.

Jay Bruce
01-24-2008, 03:36 AM
BPA (Best Pitcher Available). Preferably close to contributing.

That's the mindset that made the Pirates select Bryan Bullington over BJ Upton in 2002. The Reds need to go for the best player available, regardless of position. With that said, I like the sound of Tim Beckham. The Reds could use a legitimate SS prospect.

dougdirt
01-24-2008, 04:30 AM
I just want the best player available. I don't care if its a pitcher, catcher, first baseman, outfielder.... whatever. Just take the best baseball talent available according to your scouts.

icehole3
01-24-2008, 05:47 AM
I want the BPA, Best Pitcher Available in the first 4 or 5 rounds.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 08:58 AM
That's the mindset that made the Pirates select Bryan Bullington over BJ Upton in 2002. The Reds need to go for the best player available, regardless of position. With that said, I like the sound of Tim Beckham. The Reds could use a legitimate SS prospect.

And, if that was the mindset of the Reds 2 years ago, they would have taken Lincecum over Stubbs.

Not trying to stir up any bad blood, just saying cherry-picking from past drafts is an easy exercise for any side of the argument.

I've gotten into this with many on this board before. The way the pitching market is right now, the Reds have to figure out how they will be getting the necessary pitching to win. Here are some things that worry me:


They don't want to pony up the prospects for Bedard or Haren
Gil Meche got $55 million over 5 years last offseason
A situational LHP was just signed by the Reds to compete for a spot in the rotation this year
Behind Cueto and Bailey in the minors, there isn't really much in the way of starting pitching to be excited about

Without targeting it towards the top of the draft, I don't have a clue where Cincy's pitching will be coming from in the next 5 years.

I know it's risky. I know it's hard to project what you will need down the road. And in most cases, I would agree that best player available is the way to go. But when your team is on the cusp of having the young hitting talent it has right now, it's time to start thinking about getting the pitching going. Especially when the cupboard is becoming bare on excuses of why the Reds typically have one of the worst staffs in baseball.

I'm not saying overdraft a guy just because he's a pitcher. I'm saying if the right pitcher is there, take him. And then when someone falls in the draft who should have went higher, pony up the cash and scoop him up. There's nothing wrong with being young pitching rich in the minors. It is easily the most valued commodity.

bucksfan2
01-24-2008, 09:10 AM
That's the mindset that made the Pirates select Bryan Bullington over BJ Upton in 2002. The Reds need to go for the best player available, regardless of position. With that said, I like the sound of Tim Beckham. The Reds could use a legitimate SS prospect.

I remember when the reds drafted Bruce there were people questioning why they selected a high school outfielder with that pick. At the time the reds had Kearns, Dunn, Jr. and Wily Mo. You draft the best player available as long as his contract demands aren't outrageous. There is no way I would want to draft a HS Pitcher and pay him like Porcello (sp) was paid last draft. It just doesn't make sense.

camisadelgolf
01-24-2008, 09:19 AM
Behind Cueto and Bailey in the minors, there isn't really much in the way of starting pitching to be excited about

I'm not trying to start an argument--I'm just trying to get constructive conversation about why you (or someone else, for that matter) wouldn't be excited about the Reds' pitching prospects.

How many teams have one (let alone two) starting pitching prospect on the level of Homer Bailey or Johnny Cueto? After those two, for various reasons, I'm excited about:

Kyle Lotzkar
Travis Wood
Alex Smit
Sean Watson
Matt Maloney
Daryl Thompson
Carlos Fisher
Tzu-Kai Chiu
Evan Hildebrandt
Scott Carroll
Jordan Smith
Sam Lecure

Yeah, a few of those guys have middle/back-of-the-rotation ceilings, but like you said, even Gil Meche got a $55M/5yr. contract, so it's not like they wouldn't have value if they failed to become over-achievers.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 09:19 AM
I remember when the reds drafted Bruce there were people questioning why they selected a high school outfielder with that pick. At the time the reds had Kearns, Dunn, Jr. and Wily Mo. You draft the best player available as long as his contract demands aren't outrageous. There is no way I would want to draft a HS Pitcher and pay him like Porcello (sp) was paid last draft. It just doesn't make sense.

The same was said in 2006.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 09:28 AM
I'm not trying to start an argument--I'm just trying to get constructive conversation about why you (or someone else, for that matter) wouldn't be excited about the Reds' pitching prospects.

How many teams have one (let alone two) starting pitching prospect on the level of Homer Bailey or Johnny Cueto? After those two, for various reasons, I'm excited about:

Kyle Lotzkar
Travis Wood
Alex Smit
Sean Watson
Matt Maloney
Daryl Thompson
Carlos Fisher
Tzu-Kai Chiu
Evan Hildebrandt
Scott Carroll
Jordan Smith
Sam Lecure

Yeah, a few of those guys have middle/back-of-the-rotation ceilings, but like you said, even Gil Meche got a $55M/5yr. contract, so it's not like they wouldn't have value if they failed to become over-achievers.

Not many (if any) have two guys like Bailey and Cueto.

The guys you name are mostly low minors guys who haven't been challenged yet. I have hopes for a few of those guys (especially Lotzkar) but I'm not really excited about many of them yet.

Until a pitcher gets into the upper levels of the minors, I'm usually don't get too excited for him unless he has the pedigree of being a top prospect coming out of wherever he comes out of.

Seeing a Homer Bailey succeed in the low minors gets me a little more excited at the time than someone like Jordan Smith.

princeton
01-24-2008, 10:17 AM
these guys draft for need in first round. Since organization seems strong in RHPing, I'd expect a LHPer if not a shortstop.

if instead they go for a slugger or RHPer, then be excited. It could mean either that he was by far the highest rated player for them, or that they think that they're strong everywhere

Kc61
01-24-2008, 11:46 AM
The Reds went for some very young guys in the early rounds last year. I'd expect that trend to continue. So I expect a high ceiling HS player. Best one available at any position.

Az. Reds Fan
01-24-2008, 12:48 PM
Without a 2nd rd pick this year, the importance of not "missing" on our first rounder is even more magnified. As it stands now, after our #7 pick, we don't pick again until #80.

Patrick Bateman
01-24-2008, 12:59 PM
And, if that was the mindset of the Reds 2 years ago, they would have taken Lincecum over Stubbs.

Taking Lincecum would have been a case of best player available, not just 'best pitcher available. It's not like Stubbs was the superior prospect between the two.


I'm not saying overdraft a guy just because he's a pitcher.

I think this is where the confusion comes from. I would think using a strict 'best pitcher available' model that the theory would be to consider overdrafting simply because the player is a pitcher.

I'd agree though, that all things equal (talent, how far away), you take the pitcher.

lollipopcurve
01-24-2008, 01:02 PM
Without a 2nd rd pick this year, the importance of not "missing" on our first rounder is even more magnified. As it stands now, after our #7 pick, we don't pick again until #80.

I agree -- it's an especially important 1st rounder. I'm hoping they keep some of that 2nd round $$$ in the budget and sign somebody who falls for signability reasons. Probably wishful thinking... that dough could go into the international market, too.

princeton
01-24-2008, 01:25 PM
I agree -- it's an especially important 1st rounder. I'm hoping they keep some of that 2nd round $$$ in the budget and sign somebody who falls for signability reasons. Probably wishful thinking... that dough could go into the international market, too.

Francisco Cordero is spending the money in markets of many nations

RedsManRick
01-24-2008, 01:42 PM
They don't want to pony up the prospects for Bedard or Haren
Gil Meche got $55 million over 5 years last offseason
A situational LHP was just signed by the Reds to compete for a spot in the rotation this year
Behind Cueto and Bailey in the minors, there isn't really much in the way of starting pitching to be excited about

Without targeting it towards the top of the draft, I don't have a clue where Cincy's pitching will be coming from in the next 5 years.


Edabbs, I absolutely share your concern. I agree with the basic sentiment that the Reds will never be able to win without competent starting pitching and that given the realities of the market, the Reds will not be able to build a capable starting staff by acquiring established pitchers through trades and FA.

However, I'm not sure I agree that with the statement "without targeting it towards the top of the draft..." How do you define the top. If you mean with the first 10 rounds, or even first 5 rounds, I'd agree wholeheartedly. The vast majority of great starting pitchers who were drafted, were drafted in the top 10 rounds. However, I think insisting that we take one with the first round pick, if that's what you meant, is a bit much.

Harang was a 6th round pick. Arroyo was a 3rd round pick, as was Matt Maloney. Cueto was an international signee, as was Volquez. For every Justin Verlander or Josh Beckett (both #2 overall), there's a Johan Santana (International) or Brandon Webb (8th Round).

The bigger problem the Reds have had, in my opinion, is development of starting pitchers. Barring a significant change in the development staff and techniques (which I would strongly advocate), it won't matter how many pitchers we draft. We will continue to struggle to produce solid starters. However, we have been able to produce bats, and Wayne has shown a good ability to identify them.

I suggest that until and unless the development structure changes, we play to our strengths. Keep trading Jose Guillen and Wily Mo Pena for Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo. Let other teams get pitchers to the brink of success. Let them deal with the increased risk of career-ending injury (relative to position players). Then go and trade Todd Frazier and Drew Stubbs for Ian Snell. Go get an undervalued talent like Aaron Heilman. You get the idea. At this point, taking the best available pitcher, as a rule, is forcing a square peg in to a round hole. I'm not necessarily saying we should pass up a clearly better pitcher for a hitter, but that given the choice between two relative equals, I'd take the hitter for the Reds organization as of today.

dougdirt
01-24-2008, 02:03 PM
Edabbs, you bring up Tim Lincecum over Drew Stubbs.... but lets just say that things played out a little differently. Luke Hochevar went #1 overall, but the next 2 college pitchers taken were Greg Reynolds (shoulder surgery last August, though not said to be very serious.... still a shoulder surgery that scares me) and Brad Lincoln (TJ Surgery). What if Lincecum were taken in one of their spots and we ended up with Reynolds or Lincoln rather than Stubbs? I think everyone knows they missed the boat on Lincecum and he probably should have gone #1 or #2 overall that year, but just because he was available to take at our pick doesn't mean that we should always take that 'best college pitcher available' because that strategy doesn't always work out. I am all for taking that guy if he is the best talent available, but regardless of how the pitching market is these days, spending every pick on pitching isn't a wise strategy.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 02:05 PM
Edabbs, I absolutely share your concern. I agree with the basic sentiment that the Reds will never be able to win without competent starting pitching and that given the realities of the market, the Reds will not be able to build a capable starting staff by acquiring established pitchers through trades and FA.

However, I'm not sure I agree that with the statement "without targeting it towards the top of the draft..." How do you define the top. If you mean with the first 10 rounds, or even first 5 rounds, I'd agree wholeheartedly. The vast majority of great starting pitchers who were drafted, were drafted in the top 10 rounds. However, I think insisting that we take one with the first round pick, if that's what you meant, is a bit much.

Harang was a 6th round pick. Arroyo was a 3rd round pick, as was Matt Maloney. Cueto was an international signee, as was Volquez. For every Justin Verlander or Josh Beckett (both #2 overall), there's a Johan Santana (International) or Brandon Webb (8th Round).

The bigger problem the Reds have had, in my opinion, is development of starting pitchers. Barring a significant change in the development staff and techniques (which I would strongly advocate), it won't matter how many pitchers we draft. We will continue to struggle to produce solid starters. However, we have been able to produce bats, and Wayne has shown a good ability to identify them.

I suggest that until and unless the development structure changes, we play to our strengths. Keep trading Jose Guillen and Wily Mo Pena for Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo. Let other teams get pitchers to the brink of success. Let them deal with the increased risk of career-ending injury (relative to position players). Then go and trade Todd Frazier and Drew Stubbs for Ian Snell. Go get an undervalued talent like Aaron Heilman. You get the idea. At this point, taking the best available pitcher, as a rule, is forcing a square peg in to a round hole. I'm not necessarily saying we should pass up a clearly better pitcher for a hitter, but that given the choice between two relative equals, I'd take the hitter for the Reds organization as of today.

I'm with you on the international mkt thing.

Now, when I say "towards the top of the draft", I am meaning getting top pitchers in the draft. If that means drafting the best pitcher on the board in the 1st, go ahead. If that means grabbing a pitcher who drops because of concerns around contract demands, fine.

I'm not advocating "forcing a square peg into a round hole." What I am advocating is targeting top pitching. To be completely honest, I think the last 2 first round picks were forcing certain shaped pegs into misshapen holes. WK gets all giddy when it comes to defense up the middle? Stubbs and Mesoraco, coming right up.


Harang was a 6th round pick. Arroyo was a 3rd round pick, as was Matt Maloney. Cueto was an international signee, as was Volquez. For every Justin Verlander or Josh Beckett (both #2 overall), there's a Johan Santana (International) or Brandon Webb (8th Round).

I'm not sure how fair this is. Again, much room for cherry picking here. I know that top 10 picks are far from locks, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that they have a better chance to work out than 8th rounders, on average.


Keep trading Jose Guillen and Wily Mo Pena for Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo. Let other teams get pitchers to the brink of success. Let them deal with the increased risk of career-ending injury (relative to position players). Then go and trade Todd Frazier and Drew Stubbs for Ian Snell. Go get an undervalued talent like Aaron Heilman. You get the idea.

I do get the idea and I think we are on the same page. I just think that you are making the "just keep trading Jose Guillen for Harang" out to be a little more difficult than it really is. Times are different now. People are holding on to young pitching like grim death. Those trades don't take place as often. If it were that easy, I'd be with you 100%.

Now...the other part of strategy is to draft the pitching and, if possible, turn it into major league quality players. Look at the Florida/Detroit trade. Young arms are the most desired commodity on the street.

I did this analysis last winter and though I didn't update it this year, it probably holds true.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1216887&postcount=1

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 02:11 PM
Edabbs, you bring up Tim Lincecum over Drew Stubbs.... but lets just say that things played out a little differently. Luke Hochevar went #1 overall, but the next 2 college pitchers taken were Greg Reynolds (shoulder surgery last August, though not said to be very serious.... still a shoulder surgery that scares me) and Brad Lincoln (TJ Surgery). What if Lincecum were taken in one of their spots and we ended up with Reynolds or Lincoln rather than Stubbs? I think everyone knows they missed the boat on Lincecum and he probably should have gone #1 or #2 overall that year, but just because he was available to take at our pick doesn't mean that we should always take that 'best college pitcher available' because that strategy doesn't always work out. I am all for taking that guy if he is the best talent available, but regardless of how the pitching market is these days, spending every pick on pitching isn't a wise strategy.

OK...how about if Cincy took Chris Nelson over Homer Bailey?

Look, I didn't try and get a Stubbs debate going. Me bringing up Stubbs was purely from a cherry-picking standpoint. Either side of the argument can bring up 50 cases of where taking a pitcher over a hitter (and vice versa) worked out.

I don't want to spend every pick on pitching. I want to spend more of the premium ones. I want to draft guys who fall like Arrieta and Porcello. I don't want to stay away from drafting top pitching because they may have surgery at some point in their career. Hitters aren't guaranteed success either.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 02:14 PM
Taking Lincecum would have been a case of best player available, not just 'best pitcher available. It's not like Stubbs was the superior prospect between the two.

Then what theory were they subscribing to in that draft? Best athlete available?




I think this is where the confusion comes from. I would think using a strict 'best pitcher available' model that the theory would be to consider overdrafting simply because the player is a pitcher.

I'd agree though, that all things equal (talent, how far away), you take the pitcher.

Yep...it's only logical if the #1 hitter and #7 pitcher are on the board when Cincy picks this year that, odds are, you should take the hitter. But I just think the Reds have been a little gunshy about taking pitchers the last two years. If there's a stud there, take him.

dougdirt
01-24-2008, 02:25 PM
OK...how about if Cincy took Chris Nelson over Homer Bailey?

Look, I didn't try and get a Stubbs debate going. Me bringing up Stubbs was purely from a cherry-picking standpoint. Either side of the argument can bring up 50 cases of where taking a pitcher over a hitter (and vice versa) worked out.

I don't want to spend every pick on pitching. I want to spend more of the premium ones. I want to draft guys who fall like Arrieta and Porcello. I don't want to stay away from drafting top pitching because they may have surgery at some point in their career. Hitters aren't guaranteed success either.

You made my point for me with the Nelson thing. Take the best player available. Not the best pitcher, not the best hitter, not the best up the middle guy.... the best talent out there that you can sign (handing a MLB contract and 7 million dollars to a high school pitcher is a huge gamble and there is no question as to why the #2 or #3 talent in the draft fell to #27 with demands like that from Porcello). I have no problem with drafting pitching, at all. However they do have a much less likely chance of being a major leaguer than a position player. Its been that way throughout history and will continue to be that way simply because of injuries and how difficult it actually is to be a good pitcher.

If two players, one hitter and one pitcher both rate out the same, then by all means I want the pitcher 100 times out of 100. If we have a first baseman who rates out just a tick ahead of the pitcher, I want the first baseman every time. At the end of the day, I just want the guys being paid to judge talent by the Reds to be able to say 'we took the highest rated guy on our board that we were able to sign (and actually sign them for slot money, which means no overdrafting a guy so he will take 75% of slot money) at every pick this year'. Thats all I want.

RedsManRick
01-24-2008, 02:31 PM
I think the general point I'm making is that we stink at developing pitching and are good at developing hitting. Let's keep developing hitting and then trade it (Bruce for Bedard anybody?) rather than banging our heads against the wall with the next Ty Howington and Chris Gruler. Certainly not meant as an absolutist position, but I think it can be part of a broader strategy.

Who knows, 3 or 4 years from now, teams could be hoarding power hitting corner OF after realizing that the deal they passed up in the interests of keeping that pitcher could have really worked out in their favor. If there's anything I've learned about baseball markets, it's that the market adjusts slowly and you can get a lot of value from being out ahead of the curve.

Here's some random Warren Buffet quotes for fun that may or may not have any bearing on this conversation:

- "Investors making purchases in an overheated market need to recognize that it may often take an extended period for the value of even an outstanding company to catch up with the price they paid."
- "It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price."
- "The future is never clear, and you pay a very high price in the stock market for a cheery consensus. Uncertainty is the friend of the buyer of long-term values."
- "Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing."

RedsManRick
01-24-2008, 02:33 PM
If two players, one hitter and one pitcher both rate out the same, then by all means I want the pitcher 100 times out of 100. If we have a first baseman who rates out just a tick ahead of the pitcher, I want the first baseman every time. At the end of the day, I just want the guys being paid to judge talent by the Reds to be able to say 'we took the highest rated guy on our board that we were able to sign (and actually sign them for slot money, which means no overdrafting a guy so he will take 75% of slot money) at every pick this year'. Thats all I want.

Three questions Doug.

1.) Do you think the Reds evaluate talent equally well across skill sets and positions?
2.) Do you think the Reds develop talent equally well across skill sets and positions?
3.) Do you think the answers to #1 and #2 should have any bearing on who gets drafted?

Highlifeman21
01-24-2008, 02:36 PM
I just want the best player available. I don't care if its a pitcher, catcher, first baseman, outfielder.... whatever. Just take the best baseball talent available according to your scouts.

We agree on something concerning prospects! (sorta)

Take the best guy available, regardless of the position, depending on the strength of the draft. If it's a weak draft, take the best guy available regardless of position. If it's a strong draft, then you have a better chance to draft to fill a need.

Unfortunately, I honestly think the Reds did the exact opposite of that the last 2 years. I think they tried to draft to fill a need rather than take the best available guy when they were on the clock.

princeton
01-24-2008, 02:36 PM
I just think that you are making the "just keep trading Jose Guillen for Harang" out to be a little more difficult than it really is. Times are different now. People are holding on to young pitching like grim death. Those trades don't take place as often.

I've been hearing this myth for 25 years

you can still get young pitching. Heck, we'd trade you young pitching even though we need pitching.

the tough part is figuring out the right young pitcher. And it always will be.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 02:51 PM
You made my point for me with the Nelson thing. Take the best player available. Not the best pitcher, not the best hitter, not the best up the middle guy.... the best talent out there that you can sign (handing a MLB contract and 7 million dollars to a high school pitcher is a huge gamble and there is no question as to why the #2 or #3 talent in the draft fell to #27 with demands like that from Porcello). I have no problem with drafting pitching, at all. However they do have a much less likely chance of being a major leaguer than a position player. Its been that way throughout history and will continue to be that way simply because of injuries and how difficult it actually is to be a good pitcher.

If two players, one hitter and one pitcher both rate out the same, then by all means I want the pitcher 100 times out of 100. If we have a first baseman who rates out just a tick ahead of the pitcher, I want the first baseman every time. At the end of the day, I just want the guys being paid to judge talent by the Reds to be able to say 'we took the highest rated guy on our board that we were able to sign (and actually sign them for slot money, which means no overdrafting a guy so he will take 75% of slot money) at every pick this year'. Thats all I want.

Nelson was ranked higher than Homer.

westofyou
01-24-2008, 02:52 PM
The shouldn't even bother with the draft, the draft ain't getting them to the World Series this year so they should save the money and do something else with it.
\\

Patrick Bateman
01-24-2008, 02:52 PM
Then what theory were they subscribing to in that draft? Best athlete available?


I don't know. But Lincecum was the obvious pick. Whatever the Reds were thinking on that one was messed up. Hell, 99% of Redszone got that one right, and it wasn't just because he was a pitcher. It's because he was the obvious best player available.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 02:53 PM
I've been hearing this myth for 25 years

you can still get young pitching. Heck, we'd trade you young pitching even though we need pitching.

the tough part is figuring out the right young pitcher. And it always will be.

I know that this would be nearly impossible to quantify...but which scenario do you think is more likely to happen?

1) Drafting a legit #1-2 starting pitcher with a top 10 pick

2) Trading a Jose Guillen type player for an Aaron Harang type pitcher

I think that there is a better shot at #1.

Patrick Bateman
01-24-2008, 02:53 PM
The shouldn't even bother with the draft, the draft ain't getting them to the World Series this year so they should save the money and do something else with it.
\\

Trade the picks for Bedard and Santana?

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 02:56 PM
The shouldn't even bother with the draft, the draft ain't getting them to the World Series this year so they should save the money and do something else with it.
\\

Neither is Jeremy Affeldt, Mike Stanton or Jeff Conine.

But their money adds up to Rick Porcello.

RedsManRick
01-24-2008, 02:56 PM
I know that this would be nearly impossible to quantify...but which scenario do you think is more likely to happen?

1) Drafting a legit #1-2 starting pitcher with a top 10 pick

2) Trading a Jose Guillen type player for an Aaron Harang type pitcher

I think that there is a better shot at #1.

This would be an interesting study. Take the top 50 starters in MLB. Look at how they arrived with the team with whom the first found success.

dougdirt
01-24-2008, 02:57 PM
Nelson was ranked higher than Homer.

According to who? Not everyone shared that belief.

dougdirt
01-24-2008, 03:02 PM
Three questions Doug.

1.) Do you think the Reds evaluate talent equally well across skill sets and positions?
2.) Do you think the Reds develop talent equally well across skill sets and positions?
3.) Do you think the answers to #1 and #2 should have any bearing on who gets drafted?

1. Pretty much.

2. Lately, yes. They have brought pitchers, corner infielders, outfielders up through the ranks lately. I guess the middle infielders is still lacking, but there are several candidates there.

3. No, I don't think it should have any bearing on it. Even if the answers were no to the previous questions I don't think it should have any bearing on who gets drafted. It should however have a bearing on who gets fired from their job in the minor leagues though. Don't pass up better talent (where you are generally paying $500,000-$3,000,000) because the coaches (who aren't making anything close to that) aren't doing their jobs correctly. Fire the coaches, bring in better ones. Draft the best talents.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 03:03 PM
According to who? Not everyone shared that belief.

BA had Nelson at #4 and Homer at #6. Verlander at #7.

jmcclain19
01-24-2008, 03:08 PM
Someone mentioned Brandon Webb - and his is a fascinating comparison. He was middling minor league pitcher until someone in the Dbacks org was smart enough to see that his natural sink on his fastball would make for a killer sinker. And thus a Cy Young winner was born out a few thousand dollar investment

dougdirt
01-24-2008, 03:11 PM
BA had Nelson at #4 and Homer at #6. Verlander at #7.

Well, I would wager to say that not everyone had it the same way. Obviously Nelson fell to #9 for a reason and it wasn't money since he signed for slot. My thing is, I don't want who BA thinks is the best guy, or who Redszone poster guy thinks is the best guy, I just want who the Reds scouts think is the best guy.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 03:22 PM
Well, I would wager to say that not everyone had it the same way. Obviously Nelson fell to #9 for a reason and it wasn't money since he signed for slot. My thing is, I don't want who BA thinks is the best guy, or who Redszone poster guy thinks is the best guy, I just want who the Reds scouts think is the best guy.

I agree with you.

But do you think that the Reds scouts really thought that Stubbs and Mesoraco were the two best on the board the last two years? If so, we may need to revisit that thought process.

dougdirt
01-24-2008, 04:14 PM
I agree with you.

But do you think that the Reds scouts really thought that Stubbs and Mesoraco were the two best on the board the last two years? If so, we may need to revisit that thought process.

I think they thought Stubbs was the best talent on the board, but probably wouldn't be the fastest guy to the majors. Sometimes we lose focus that getting there the fastest doesn't make someone the best pick. Would I take Lincecum over Stubbs? Sure. That doesn't mean Stubbs is a bad pick or even was a bad pick at the time though.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 04:48 PM
I think they thought Stubbs was the best talent on the board, but probably wouldn't be the fastest guy to the majors. Sometimes we lose focus that getting there the fastest doesn't make someone the best pick. Would I take Lincecum over Stubbs? Sure. That doesn't mean Stubbs is a bad pick or even was a bad pick at the time though.

If Stubbs is playing the part of the tortoise in his "race" with Lincecum, then I think most on this board will happily eat some humble pie when the time comes.

dougdirt
01-24-2008, 05:13 PM
If Stubbs is playing the part of the tortoise in his "race" with Lincecum, then I think most on this board will happily eat some humble pie when the time comes.

Its not with Lincecum and really has nothing to do with Stubbs. It is more of a faster players doesn't always equal the better player thing. That was more of my point.

RedsManRick
01-24-2008, 05:18 PM
Someone mentioned Brandon Webb - and his is a fascinating comparison. He was middling minor league pitcher until someone in the Dbacks org was smart enough to see that his natural sink on his fastball would make for a killer sinker. And thus a Cy Young winner was born out a few thousand dollar investment

I think that the best organizations get value (production or trade) from their lower round prospects much better than others do -- the Braves being the classic example and the Padres increasingly so.

RedsManRick
01-24-2008, 05:22 PM
Its not with Lincecum and really has nothing to do with Stubbs. It is more of a faster players doesn't always equal the better player thing. That was more of my point.

I think edabbs got your point, but his is fair too. That one guy is already a better than league average starter and the other has struggled in the low minors shows how incredibly different they are as talents. In the end, you're right, Stubbs may prove to have been the better choice, but it's apples and watermelons so far.

lollipopcurve
01-24-2008, 05:30 PM
I think edabbs got your point, but his is fair too. That one guy is already a better than league average starter and the other has struggled in the low minors shows how incredibly different they are as talents. In the end, you're right, Stubbs may prove to have been the better choice, but it's apples and watermelons so far.

I was hoping we could get around to 2008....

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 05:31 PM
I think that the best organizations get value (production or trade) from their lower round prospects much better than others do -- the Braves being the classic example and the Padres increasingly so.

I think you are also going to see a few teams pull away from the pack in this respect because they are willing to go above slot for later round picks. Of course BOS and NYY, but Washington did that last year and Detroit as well.

dougdirt
01-24-2008, 05:40 PM
I think edabbs got your point, but his is fair too. That one guy is already a better than league average starter and the other has struggled in the low minors shows how incredibly different they are as talents. In the end, you're right, Stubbs may prove to have been the better choice, but it's apples and watermelons so far.

Its not really a stubbs vs lincecum thing. I was merely pointing out that sometimes people get caught up in a 'the guy who got there first was the best pick'. It really had little if anything to do with Stubbs or Lincecum.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 05:42 PM
Its not really a stubbs vs lincecum thing. I was merely pointing out that sometimes people get caught up in a 'the guy who got there first was the best pick'. It really had little if anything to do with Stubbs or Lincecum.

But to be fair, Lincecum's performance isn't like when Ryan Wagner got to the show.

RedsManRick
01-24-2008, 05:45 PM
I think you are also going to see a few teams pull away from the pack in this respect because they are willing to go above slot for later round picks. Of course BOS and NYY, but Washington did that last year and Detroit as well.

Yeah, in hindsight, I think we'll see the 2007 draft as the point of no return for the current system. Clearly there were a handful of teams who ignored the commissioner's suggested slot values. It messes with the integrity of the draft. I think it will take some time, and probably happen incrementally, but one of 3 things has to happen:

1. Equal financial constraints on organizations such cost is only a very minor consideration at best (NBA & NFL). Never gonna happen. This works in the NBA & NFL because system roster depth is so limited.

2. Fixed slot pricing. This could happen, but I hope it doesn't. No team should feel penalized for getting a high draft spot. It also doesn't allow the market to account for the natural variation in talent and talent distribution from year to year. It also prevents creative contracts which incentivize the player to sign but reduce financial risk to the organization.

3. Tradeable picks. Efficient markets are good markets. Sure, it might take a few years for a valuation equilibrium to settle in, but this is far and away the best solution, because it doesn't require any fiddling with the money. My only limit is that no pick could be traded for a significant financial sum. Just like with players, anything over x amount of money involved requires commish approval. This simply makes WAY too much sense not to happen.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 06:51 PM
Yeah, in hindsight, I think we'll see the 2007 draft as the point of no return for the current system. Clearly there were a handful of teams who ignored the commissioner's suggested slot values. It messes with the integrity of the draft. I think it will take some time, and probably happen incrementally, but one of 3 things has to happen:

1. Equal financial constraints on organizations such cost is only a very minor consideration at best (NBA & NFL). Never gonna happen. This works in the NBA & NFL because system roster depth is so limited.

2. Fixed slot pricing. This could happen, but I hope it doesn't. No team should feel penalized for getting a high draft spot. It also doesn't allow the market to account for the natural variation in talent and talent distribution from year to year. It also prevents creative contracts which incentivize the player to sign but reduce financial risk to the organization.

3. Tradeable picks. Efficient markets are good markets. Sure, it might take a few years for a valuation equilibrium to settle in, but this is far and away the best solution, because it doesn't require any fiddling with the money. My only limit is that no pick could be traded for a significant financial sum. Just like with players, anything over x amount of money involved requires commish approval. This simply makes WAY too much sense not to happen.

Globalize the draft.

dougdirt
01-24-2008, 07:15 PM
But to be fair, Lincecum's performance isn't like when Ryan Wagner got to the show.

I don't know what you mean by that.....

But I still don't know what Lincecum has to do with my analogy because it wasn't about him.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 08:57 PM
I don't know what you mean by that.....

But I still don't know what Lincecum has to do with my analogy because it wasn't about him.

You said it isn't about "who gets there first." I said that is true, but that's not why people think Lincecum would have been a better pick than Stubbs. It doesn't matter that he's in the majors already. It matters that he tore it up wherever he went, including the majors.

dougdirt
01-24-2008, 09:18 PM
You said it isn't about "who gets there first." I said that is true, but that's not why people think Lincecum would have been a better pick than Stubbs. It doesn't matter that he's in the majors already. It matters that he tore it up wherever he went, including the majors.

You are trying to make a point based around a point I made that wasn't around the point you are trying to make.

edabbs44
01-24-2008, 10:48 PM
You are trying to make a point based around a point I made that wasn't around the point you are trying to make.

Cool...cause I wasn't trying to make the point you thought I was trying to make. :)

HokieRed
01-25-2008, 12:06 AM
I think the book is far from closed on the Lincecum-Stubbs comparison. As of right now, it looks like Lincecum was the obviously better pick, but Lincecum is one injury away from being a lot worse pick than Stubbs--and that is always a factor to consider when comparing pitchers to position players. As I remember that draft, a concern about Lincecum, expressed not only by the Reds but by a number of teams, was with his mechanics and size. Those are still concerns. Stubbs was a solid pick. He's not had a very fast beginning in the minors, but injuries have played a serious role in that. He still combines above average power with tremendous defense; in a center fielder, that is an enormously valuable combination. I, for one, predict a big breakout year for him this year, with him finishing the year at Louisville. But that aside, it's entirely possible that 3-5 years from now--not to mention 10--the Stubbs-Lincecum decision may look quite different from the way it does now. I think it's much more important in judging an organization's drafting to see what it acquires in the first three rounds over a period of several years (assuming that every club will always manage to pick up some lower round picks that surprise.)

SteelSD
01-25-2008, 12:42 AM
I think the book is far from closed on the Lincecum-Stubbs comparison. As of right now, it looks like Lincecum was the obviously better pick, but Lincecum is one injury away from being a lot worse pick than Stubbs--and that is always a factor to consider when comparing pitchers to position players. As I remember that draft, a concern about Lincecum, expressed not only by the Reds but by a number of teams, was with his mechanics and size. Those are still concerns. Stubbs was a solid pick.

Stubbs was a ridiculous pick with Lincecum on the board. Stupid pick. Plain stupid. We knew that at the moment of the selection.


He's not had a very fast beginning in the minors, but injuries have played a serious role in that. He still combines above average power with tremendous defense; in a center fielder, that is an enormously valuable combination. I, for one, predict a big breakout year for him this year, with him finishing the year at Louisville. But that aside, it's entirely possible that 3-5 years from now--not to mention 10--the Stubbs-Lincecum decision may look quite different from the way it does now. I think it's much more important in judging an organization's drafting to see what it acquires in the first three rounds over a period of several years (assuming that every club will always manage to pick up some lower round picks that surprise.)

Had the Reds made the obvious choice in recent drafts (Weaver, Lincecum), they would have likely contended for a playoff spot as early as 2007. Frankly, we'd likely be looking at a potential playoff window of more than five years, beginning with 2007, had the right players been drafted.

KoryMac5
01-25-2008, 01:25 AM
Stubbs was a ridiculous pick with Lincecum on the board. Stupid pick. Plain stupid. We knew that at the moment of the selection.



Had the Reds made the obvious choice in recent drafts (Weaver, Lincecum), they would have likely contended for a playoff spot as early as 2007. Frankly, we'd likely be looking at a potential playoff window of more than five years, beginning with 2007, had the right players been drafted.


It was definitely a poor decision made by our draft guru's. The way I understood it was that the Reds braintrust felt that they had gone pitching heavy the last few years. They selected Stubbs because he was the best everyday player on the board. Thus violating the rule of selecting the best player available over need.

edabbs44
01-25-2008, 09:04 AM
Had the Reds made the obvious choice in recent drafts (Weaver, Lincecum), they would have likely contended for a playoff spot as early as 2007. Frankly, we'd likely be looking at a potential playoff window of more than five years, beginning with 2007, had the right players been drafted.

To be fair, Weaver wasn't the overwhelmingly obvious choice who could have been taken in '05. IIRC, Hochevar was ranked ahead of him and Drew was right there as well.

edabbs44
01-25-2008, 09:10 AM
I think the book is far from closed on the Lincecum-Stubbs comparison. As of right now, it looks like Lincecum was the obviously better pick, but Lincecum is one injury away from being a lot worse pick than Stubbs--and that is always a factor to consider when comparing pitchers to position players. As I remember that draft, a concern about Lincecum, expressed not only by the Reds but by a number of teams, was with his mechanics and size. Those are still concerns. Stubbs was a solid pick. He's not had a very fast beginning in the minors, but injuries have played a serious role in that. He still combines above average power with tremendous defense; in a center fielder, that is an enormously valuable combination. I, for one, predict a big breakout year for him this year, with him finishing the year at Louisville. But that aside, it's entirely possible that 3-5 years from now--not to mention 10--the Stubbs-Lincecum decision may look quite different from the way it does now. I think it's much more important in judging an organization's drafting to see what it acquires in the first three rounds over a period of several years (assuming that every club will always manage to pick up some lower round picks that surprise.)

Without a doubt.

But discussions like these are what make these message boards fun. If we waited to comment on some decisions, this board would be dead. Jeez, a non-transaction like Bedard gets over 1,000 posts!

princeton
01-25-2008, 10:11 AM
To be fair, Weaver wasn't the overwhelmingly obvious choice who could have been taken in '05. IIRC, Hochevar was ranked ahead of him and Drew was right there as well.

at the time of that draft, Weaver was the overwhelmingly obvious choice for a team with good hitting but a desperate need for major league starting pitching.

lollipopcurve
01-25-2008, 10:19 AM
at the time of that draft, Weaver was the overwhelmingly obvious choice for a team with good hitting but a desperate need for major league starting pitching.

Weaver wanted a major league deal and well above slot. The Reds weren't going to do that for anybody -- it was a policy preference, not a talent preference.

edabbs44
01-25-2008, 10:19 AM
at the time of that draft, Weaver was the overwhelmingly obvious choice for a team with good hitting but a desperate need for major league starting pitching.

But that's the crux of some arguments on here...best player available, not best player available in a need position.

However, I'm with you on this one. I want to see more top tier pitchers like Weaver taken in the 1st round.

edabbs44
01-25-2008, 10:22 AM
Weaver wanted a major league deal and well above slot. The Reds weren't going to do that for anybody -- it was a policy preference, not a talent preference.

Sometimes the markets warrant a change of policy. A lot of top talents want above slot. Not going above slot as a policy means the Reds don't have a "best player available" policy either.

It's really the best player who will sign for a reasonable amount.

Which is kind of ironic, when you consider how much above "slot" they have gone for elderly relief pitchers.

princeton
01-25-2008, 10:25 AM
Weaver wanted a major league deal and well above slot. The Reds weren't going to do that for anybody -- it was a policy preference, not a talent preference.

precisely. Weaver was the right choice, but unpopular with the legacy of Dick Wagner

but as I mentioned at the time, even if you meet his demands, you probably save a lot of money given the payroll requirements for similar pitchers. And even if you added him and found yourself still unable to compete, he's a guy that you could have traded last winter for a Haren-like return and probably more. Ironically, the expensive pick was probably the best value pick.

princeton
01-25-2008, 10:52 AM
But that's the crux of some arguments on here...best player available, not best player available in a need position.

I'm not a big fan of drafting for need, but I do like drafting guys that are really close to the majors, especially if your organization can't develop guys like that.

given the Reds' record of developing pitching, Weaver was the choice

edabbs44
01-25-2008, 11:21 AM
I'm not a big fan of drafting for need, but I do like drafting guys that are really close to the majors, especially if your organization can't develop guys like that.

given the Reds' record of developing pitching, Weaver was the choice

I think the development of pitching record is a little overblown. There are different coaches, different pitchers, different training regimens, etc. Gruler's shoulder was probably going to explode no matter if he went to Cincy or Atlanta. Same with Howington.

If it was all the same variables in a 5 year stretch, then I would agree. But I don't think it was like that.

princeton
01-25-2008, 11:41 AM
I think the development of pitching record is a little overblown.

it's not been 20 Freaking Years?

RedsManRick
01-25-2008, 12:32 PM
it's not been 20 Freaking Years?

Let's not rehash this debate. Here's the summary.

Not-princeton: "Maybe we will start developing guys soon."

princeton: "The Reds haven't developed pitching consistently for 20 years."

Not-princeton: "But there have been changes of staff, of talent, and of leadership. Why blame the current crop of people for the past failures of others?"

princeton: "It's systematic. We keep making the same drafting mistakes and hiring incompetent people. New faces, same problems."

Not-princeton: "We should give these new guys a chance. They might be different"

princeton: "At this point, it's guilty until proven innocent. Deal with it."

End scene.

nate
01-25-2008, 12:39 PM
Let's not rehash this debate. Here's the summary.

Not-princeton: "Maybe we will start developing guys soon."

princeton: "The Reds haven't developed pitching consistently for 20 years."

Not-princeton: "But there have been changes of staff, of talent, and of leadership. Why blame the current crop of people for the past failures of others?"

princeton: "It's systematic. We keep making the same drafting mistakes and hiring incompetent people. New faces, same problems."

Not-princeton: "We should give these new guys a chance. They might be different"

princeton: "At this point, it's guilty until proven innocent. Deal with it."

End scene.

It must be the local water.

princeton
01-25-2008, 02:06 PM
It must be the local water.

the Curse of Joe Bowen (Reds' scouting director 1969-83, the last year that we drafted a decent pitcher-- Rob Dibble)

BTW, the labrum injuries COMPLETELY stopped immediately after Marge died. Coincidence? I think not.

edabbs44
01-25-2008, 02:12 PM
the Curse of Joe Bowen (Reds' scouting director 1969-83, the last year that we drafted a decent pitcher-- Rob Dibble)

BTW, the labrum injuries COMPLETELY stopped immediately after Marge died. Coincidence? I think not.

Gardner and Pauly beg to differ.

princeton
01-25-2008, 02:18 PM
Gardner and Pauly beg to differ.


those two guys from Marge's last living draft beg to differ?

those were two shoulders that never had a chance

edabbs44
01-25-2008, 02:24 PM
those two guys from Marge's last living draft beg to differ?

those were two shoulders that never had a chance

Oh...living draft. Thought you meant the actual surgery dates.

dougdirt
01-25-2008, 02:46 PM
Eh, I think its too early to say that Weaver was the obvious choice without really seeing what Bailey has done.

M2
01-25-2008, 03:38 PM
Eh, I think its too early to say that Weaver was the obvious choice without really seeing what Bailey has done.

A division title in 2006, and that's exactly what Weaver would have delivered, would have been nice though.

I also imagine that the Reds would be the odds-on favorites for the NL Central in 2008. In fact the team might not have dealt Josh Hamilton for Volquez if Weaver was in town.

Maybe Bailey will turn into a better pitcher in the long run, but in the grand scheme of who'd be able to give the Reds the most good seasons, Weaver would currently be at two and on the cusp of a third.

RedsManRick
01-25-2008, 03:46 PM
This picking of players in retrospect strikes me as a really pointless exercise in which we each can selectively pick when certain things we would have done worked out well. Rather, I'd like to understand why the Reds picked the player they did, and more to the point, what their logic is moving forward.

Benihana
01-25-2008, 03:46 PM
Eh, I think its too early to say that Weaver was the obvious choice without really seeing what Bailey has done.

[beating dead horse]

Well then I guess it's too early to say that Lincecum was the obvious choice without really seeing what Stubbs has done. :rolleyes:

[/beating dead horse]

westofyou
01-25-2008, 03:54 PM
This picking of players in retrospect strikes me as a really pointless exercise

Man I should have bought some Microsoft stock back in the 80's.

RedsManRick
01-25-2008, 03:55 PM
Man I should have bought some Microsoft stock back in the 80's.

I almost bought $5,000 work of Google at IPO. True story!

dougdirt
01-25-2008, 03:58 PM
[beating dead horse]

Well then I guess it's too early to say that Lincecum was the obvious choice without really seeing what Stubbs has done. :rolleyes:

[/beating dead horse]

I think Lincecum was the better choice and probably should have gone 1, 2 or 3 in the draft.... but it is too early to say much about the 2006 draft.

princeton
01-25-2008, 03:59 PM
This picking of players in retrospect strikes me as a really pointless exercise .


a lot of these guys were picked by Zoners at the time, just from reading Baseball America. It says a lot about the organization, making it not pointless

another point: in spite of it, we're still here.

dougdirt
01-25-2008, 04:06 PM
Its too early to say 'Zoners' made the right picks from anything post 2003. Bailey, Bruce, Stubbs, Mesoraco..... too soon to make any call on them as far as 'good pick, bad pick, not the right pick'.

RedsManRick
01-25-2008, 04:32 PM
a lot of these guys were picked by Zoners at the time, just from reading Baseball America. It says a lot about the organization, making it not pointless

another point: in spite of it, we're still here.

Of course they were, but that's the point. Somebody wins the lottery every day. I made a great call here, you made a great call there. Put us all together, pick out our wins, and suddenly the collective RedsZone looks like the best front office in baseball.

If anybody can site for me their 5-10 year history of preferences of who we should have taken based on the available pool of players at the time of the pick, then we can talk. But citing 1 or 2 examples of when a given person was right doesn't make a compelling case that they are smarter.

I was solidly behind Lincecum, but I wasn't a big fan of the Bruce pick. I wanted Stephen Drew in 2004. Maybe I'm the only who missed a few times too, I dunno.

dougdirt
01-25-2008, 04:40 PM
In 2005 I wanted Cameron Maybin (glad he wasn't around when we picked) and in 2006 I wanted Billy Rowell. Last year there were several guys I would have lived with. We all have our hits and misses.

M2
01-25-2008, 05:01 PM
This picking of players in retrospect strikes me as a really pointless exercise in which we each can selectively pick when certain things we would have done worked out well. Rather, I'd like to understand why the Reds picked the player they did, and more to the point, what their logic is moving forward.

I'd say the former is critical for the latter. If you lack the perspective of who the legitimate alternatives were at the time (Kazmir/Francis, Weaver, Lincecum), then you can't really understand where the flaw lies in the Reds' talent estimation/logic. You also won't begin to understand how to employ a better approach moving forward.

For instance, let's say Matusz is ranked the #1 or #2 prospect heading into the draft and he falls to the Reds at #7. Those who don't view previous drafts as learning experiences may come up with a laundry list of reasons not to pounce (money surely being #1). Yet if Matusz is a true near-ready pitcher, we can see the dramatic impact he could have on the organization.

Obviously that's hypothetical, but there is a body of evidence that the Reds have missed the boat on some fairly dramatic and immediate returns with their previous top 10 picks. People around here argued forcefully for those alternatives and I think we'd be discarding something essential if we try to wipe that slate clean. I know it's dramatically influenced my thinking on this subject.

princeton
01-25-2008, 05:12 PM
Of course they were, but that's the point. Somebody wins the lottery every day. I made a great call here, you made a great call there. Put us all together, pick out our wins, and suddenly the collective RedsZone looks like the best front office in baseball.

If anybody can site for me their 5-10 year history of preferences of who we should have taken based on the available pool of players at the time of the pick, then we can talk. .

1992: Jeter
1993: passed (writing my thesis)
1994: Nomar Garciaparra
1995: no 1st rounder
1996: AJ Zapp, I think. Went to school in same place
1997: Lance Berkman (ask the Fastball people)
1998: Sean Burroughs (ditto)
1999: the immortal Rick Asadoorian
2000: I liked the Espinosa pick
2001: passed? Think I was moving
2002: Jeff Francis (see archives)
2003: nothing in archives, can't recall. Couldn't have been a good one.
2004: Jered Weaver if I get owner approval, Wade Townsend if not. See archives
2005: Bruce
2006: Kyle Drabek, who has a chance. But I badly missed Lincecum, who sounded like Ryan Wagner, and I don't have to say wait 10 years to find out. The reason that I know this is because if I really like Drabek, or Stubbs or whomever, better than I like Lincecum, then I can trade Lincecum to that team right this minute and get Stubbs plus three other players that I like as well. Lincecum was the right pick and there's no doubt about it
2007: I passed. Too busy.


so really, BA (which is all that I read) soundly beats the Reds, Royals, etc. And that's an important thing to understand.

SteelSD
01-25-2008, 07:03 PM
Its too early to say 'Zoners' made the right picks from anything post 2003. Bailey, Bruce, Stubbs, Mesoraco..... too soon to make any call on them as far as 'good pick, bad pick, not the right pick'.

If you're paying attention, you can determine the quality of a decision almost immediately. Anything else is a call for hindsight analysis.

Excepting Bruce, the Reds have gone high risk for quite some time now with their first rounders. Sure, it'd be nice if at least one of their dumb ideas works out, but such an occurrence would do nothing to support the quality of the original decision. Sometimes we get a positive result from doing a dumb thing. Doesn't make the decision to do said dumb thing any better.

RedsManRick
01-25-2008, 07:31 PM
I'd say the former is critical for the latter. If you lack the perspective of who the legitimate alternatives were at the time (Kazmir/Francis, Weaver, Lincecum), then you can't really understand where the flaw lies in the Reds' talent estimation/logic. You also won't begin to understand how to employ a better approach moving forward.

For instance, let's say Matusz is ranked the #1 or #2 prospect heading into the draft and he falls to the Reds at #7. Those who don't view previous drafts as learning experiences may come up with a laundry list of reasons not to pounce (money surely being #1). Yet if Matusz is a true near-ready pitcher, we can see the dramatic impact he could have on the organization.

Obviously that's hypothetical, but there is a body of evidence that the Reds have missed the boat on some fairly dramatic and immediate returns with their previous top 10 picks. People around here argued forcefully for those alternatives and I think we'd be discarding something essential if we try to wipe that slate clean. I know it's dramatically influenced my thinking on this subject.

Looking back allows us to see what decisions were made. However, I strain to gain any real insight in to why those decisions were made. The one consistent thing that appears to me is a nearly singular focus on "tools" rather skills, tools being the raw physical abilities rather than their application.

dougdirt
01-25-2008, 07:36 PM
If you're paying attention, you can determine the quality of a decision almost immediately. Anything else is a call for hindsight analysis.

Excepting Bruce, the Reds have gone high risk for quite some time now with their first rounders. Sure, it'd be nice if at least one of their dumb ideas works out, but such an occurrence would do nothing to support the quality of the original decision. Sometimes we get a positive result from doing a dumb thing. Doesn't make the decision to do said dumb thing any better.

No you can't because you don't know how good player A might be in 5 years.

Drafting Bailey wasn't a dumb thing. Drafting Bruce wasn't a dumb thing. Drafting Stubbs, we don't know if its a dumb thing or not yet. Drafting Mesoraco, we don't know if its a dumb thing or not yet.

Sure, we could have gone Weaver, Carrillo, Lincecum and anyone else....
But who is to say that those players end up better than Bailey, Bruce, Stubbs and Mesoraco, especially at this point in time? There is no way you can make that argument.

I still would take Bailey over Weaver and Bruce over anyone in their drafts. Sure, Weaver came along faster, but signed for 1.7 million more and its not like the Bailey pick is looking bad or anything. Stubbs, I didn't want from the day his name was floated around the Reds. As a matter of fact, I wanted anyone but Drew Stubbs on draft day. We still don't know who is going to be the best pick until probably 7 years from now. Sure, Lincecum looks pretty darn good right now, but we don't know how he will look 5 years from now. Mesoraco, by the same token, we have absolutely no clue on where he will be at.

M2
01-25-2008, 08:04 PM
Looking back allows us to see what decisions were made. However, I strain to gain any real insight in to why those decisions were made. The one consistent thing that appears to me is a nearly singular focus on "tools" rather skills, tools being the raw physical abilities rather than their application.

I'd say that's part of it, but I think Steel pretty much nailed it when he noted that the Reds have pursued a high risk strategy. Preferring raw tools to polished skills is just one method of increasing risk. Then you've got age and positional concerns.

For instance, in the upper first round, your top college pitchers represent much lower risk than HS arms. They just do. There's decades of records on this. And there's a profile on which type of HS arm best escapes the risk matrix.

Of course there's no higher risk than drafting a high school catcher in the first round. That's not a knock on Mesoraco, maybe he'll turn out fine, but that is a maximum risk pick.

If teams could buy insurance to protect against investing in failed draft picks, you wouldn't have been able to get a policy on Mesoraco in the first round. No actuarial table would have ever covered that.

Jay Bruce, ready-made bat and actual plus tools (as opposed to plus tools compared to people who don't have any tools) in the OF, profiled as a much lower risk selection.

Honestly, I find it impossible not to look back at past Reds drafts and not gain some rather immediate insight on where some simple risk assessment would have netted compelling returns for whom we would not need to be making "wait and see" excuses.

M2
01-25-2008, 08:30 PM
No you can't because you don't know how good player A might be in 5 years.

Yet you can know the probabilities. Pick up a copy of Freakonomics (http://books.google.com/books?id=LkQPOSXMUscC&dq=freakonomics&pg=PP1&ots=4oLgC0pnDW&sig=52vrhT4_NOTHmqB4gzuDeQfy1wk&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=7pY&q=freakonomics&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail) . Economists do this sort of stuff in their sleep.

dougdirt
01-25-2008, 08:50 PM
m2, I know risk vs reward. I have done plenty of draft research myself. I know who makes good picks in theory and who doesn't. That said, the high school pitcher argument doesn't hold much water with me being the way that they are being brought along over the past 7-8 years compared to how they were brought along prior to that time. Time will eventually tell if there is a difference from high school pitchers success rate from 2000 and on compared to 1980-1999. The days of a 19 year old kid throwing 200 innings in a minor league season is long gone though. That practice was something not too unheard of all that long ago.

M2
01-25-2008, 09:11 PM
m2, I know risk vs reward. I have done plenty of draft research myself. I know who makes good picks in theory and who doesn't. That said, the high school pitcher argument doesn't hold much water with me being the way that they are being brought along over the past 7-8 years compared to how they were brought along prior to that time. Time will eventually tell if there is a difference from high school pitchers success rate from 2000 and on compared to 1980-1999. The days of a 19 year old kid throwing 200 innings in a minor league season is long gone though. That practice was something not too unheard of all that long ago.

What you think is new is real old hat to some of us. I imagine we've got people on this site can recall promises of how young pitchers won't be blown out with oppressive workloads dating back to WWII.

Anyway, here's the list of pitchers since 2000 drafted in the upper first round who have qualified for an ERA title with a sub-5.00 ERA:

Mark Prior
Jeff Francis
Paul Maholm
Jered Weaver
Justin Verlander

Go ahead, guess what they all have in common.

dougdirt
01-25-2008, 09:17 PM
You are working with what, 3 years of pitchers there? High School drafted pitchers from 2003 are going to be 22-23 year old next year. Guys drafted after that are even younger. I would imagine there aren't many guys out there in the running for 175+ innings yet. Of course, College pitchers drafted in 2000 are in the 28-31 year old range now, guys drafted in 2001 are in the 27-30 year old range, guys drafted in 2002 are in the 26-29 year old range and guys drafted in 2003 are 25-28. I would imagine there would be a whole lot more of those guys aged 25-31 qualifying for ERA titles than guys 21-26.

M2
01-25-2008, 09:19 PM
You are working with what, 3 years of pitchers there? High School drafted pitchers from 2003 are going to be 22-23 year old next year. Guys drafted after that are even younger. I would imagine there aren't many guys out there in the running for 175+ innings yet. Of course, College pitchers drafted in 2000 are in the 28-31 year old range now, guys drafted in 2001 are in the 27-30 year old range, guys drafted in 2002 are in the 26-29 year old range and guys drafted in 2003 are 25-28. I would imagine there would be a whole lot more of those guys aged 25-31 qualifying for ERA titles than guys 21-26.

I'm actually working on eight years. All I did was use the years you outlined (since 1999). If you don't like the results, blame yourself.

One correction, I missed Scott Kazmir, drafted #15 in 2002. So that's five college arms and one HS arm since the world supposedly changed.

dougdirt
01-25-2008, 09:25 PM
I'm actually working on eight years. All I did was use the years you outlined (since 1999). If you don't like the results, blame yourself.

One correction, I missed Scott Kazmir, drafted #15 in 2002. So that's five college arms and one HS arm since the world supposedly changed.

And like I said, time will tell how it turns out, but it hasn't been nearly long enough to tell any real results yet.

RedsManRick
01-25-2008, 09:31 PM
That's not a fair case M2 given the parameters. Clearly an 18 year old drafted in '04 is less likely to have qualified for an ERA title than a 21 or 22 year old college draftee who is by definition further developed. How about we do the same exercise on 1990-1999? I don't know the results, but there's no reason to pick a biased sample.

M2
01-25-2008, 09:35 PM
That's not a fair case M2 given the parameters. Clearly an 18 year old drafted in '04 is less likely to have qualified for an ERA title than a 21 or 22 year old college draftee who is by definition further developed. How about we do the same exercise on 1990-1999? I don't know the results, but there's no reason to pick a biased sample.

I didn't set the parameters. I was told things had changed since 2000 and then I looked to see if they had. I've got a 5:1 ratio that says there's no meat on that bone.

Could something that hasn't happened happen in the future? Sure, but, and let me emphasize this, it hasn't happened yet.

I've already done the same basic exercise for 1990-99 (you're able to use more than one year as a metric) with the stip that the performance had to be registered for the drafting team. The result? Wipe out in favor of the college arms. IIRC it was somewhere around 10:1.

dougdirt
01-25-2008, 09:56 PM
I didn't set the parameters. I was told things had changed since 2000 and then I looked to see if they had. I've got a 5:1 ratio that says there's no meat on that bone.

Could something that hasn't happened happen in the future? Sure, but, and let me emphasize this, it hasn't happened yet.

I've already done the same basic exercise for 1990-99 (you're able to use more than one year as a metric) with the stip that the performance had to be registered for the drafting team. The result? Wipe out in favor of the college arms. IIRC it was somewhere around 10:1.

Again though M2, its too early for this 'study' to have much relevance because there hasn't been enough time for the high school pitchers to really come to fruition, or even flop if thats the case as I stated earlier, unless they were drafted prior to 2004, they can't even buy a beer yet, so the odds that they are going to be qualifying for an ERA title isn't good.

M2
01-25-2008, 09:58 PM
Again though M2, its too early for this 'study' to have much relevance because there hasn't been enough time for the high school pitchers to really come to fruition, or even flop if thats the case as I stated earlier, unless they were drafted prior to 2004, they can't even buy a beer yet, so the odds that they are going to be qualifying for an ERA title isn't good.

Yet it's not too early to insist things have changed since 1999?

For the record, I didn't do a study, all I did was test your hypothesis. It failed.

dougdirt
01-25-2008, 10:05 PM
Yet it's not too early to insist things have changed since 1999?

For the record, I didn't do a study, all I did was test your hypothesis. It failed.

Well my hypothesis is that the development of high school arms has changed roughly in the late 90s to early 2000s and that in time we would begin to see more high school pitchers have success compared to their counterparts in the 80s and 90s. You can't really test that hypothesis yet and get true data that will hold water. You also took it upon yourself to take away anyone in the second half of the first round from my hypothesis. It will be something worth looking back on as the years continue to go by, but I don't think we will be able to test my hypothesis truly until probably 2011 or 2012 when we will likely have 7 or 8 years worth of good data (high school pitchers that have turned at least 27) to use.

M2
01-25-2008, 10:14 PM
Well my hypothesis is that the development of high school arms has changed roughly in the late 90s to early 2000s and that in time we would begin to see more high school pitchers have success compared to their counterparts in the 80s and 90s. You can't really test that hypothesis yet and get true data that will hold water.

That's right. What you said holds no water.


You also took it upon yourself to take away anyone in the second half of the first round from my hypothesis.

You need to go back and read the thread. I talking about the upper first round before you introduced your no-water-holding theory about how things have changed.

You claimed you understand risk assessment, but if you don't understand the fault line between the upper and lower first round then I'd suggest you need to go back to the drawing board.

The money, degree of need and chances of making a good pick are all significantly higher.

edabbs44
01-25-2008, 10:25 PM
I'm actually working on eight years. All I did was use the years you outlined (since 1999). If you don't like the results, blame yourself.

One correction, I missed Scott Kazmir, drafted #15 in 2002. So that's five college arms and one HS arm since the world supposedly changed.

Zack Greinke as well.

M2
01-25-2008, 10:28 PM
Zack Greinke as well.

Never pitched more than 162 with an ERA below 5.00. I didn't count Tim Lincecum, Joe Saunders or Jeremy Sowers either.

dougdirt
01-25-2008, 10:29 PM
That's right. What you said holds no water.

You need to go back and read the thread. I talking about the upper first round before you introduced your no-water-holding theory about how things have changed.

You claimed you understand risk assessment, but if you don't understand the fault line between the upper and lower first round then I'd suggest you need to go back to the drawing board.

The money, degree of need and chances of making a good pick are all significantly higher.

Sure there is a difference between top 10 and someone 20-30, but is there much of a difference between the guy taken 11-15 or 16-20? For example, in 2004 the #14 and the #23 pick signed for the exact same amount.

Fact of the matter is, the supposed best chance you have each year to grab an impact talent is in the first round.

SteelSD
01-25-2008, 10:33 PM
No you can't because you don't know how good player A might be in 5 years.

Interesting, considering that's exactly what you do when you create a "top prospects" list. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


Drafting Bailey wasn't a dumb thing. Drafting Bruce wasn't a dumb thing. Drafting Stubbs, we don't know if its a dumb thing or not yet. Drafting Mesoraco, we don't know if its a dumb thing or not yet.

Well, apparently, you've already passed judgment on intelligence of the Homer Bailey selection while at the same time telling anyone who disagrees that they can't possibly do the same as we haven't had enough time.

Some consistency, please?


Sure, we could have gone Weaver, Carrillo, Lincecum and anyone else....
But who is to say that those players end up better than Bailey, Bruce, Stubbs and Mesoraco, especially at this point in time? There is no way you can make that argument.

Who's to say? You and no one else, apparently.


I still would take Bailey over Weaver and Bruce over anyone in their drafts. Sure, Weaver came along faster, but signed for 1.7 million more and its not like the Bailey pick is looking bad or anything. Stubbs, I didn't want from the day his name was floated around the Reds. As a matter of fact, I wanted anyone but Drew Stubbs on draft day. We still don't know who is going to be the best pick until probably 7 years from now. Sure, Lincecum looks pretty darn good right now, but we don't know how he will look 5 years from now. Mesoraco, by the same token, we have absolutely no clue on where he will be at.

I have no words...

edabbs44
01-25-2008, 10:34 PM
Never pitched more than 162 with an ERA below 5.00.

My bad...24 starts and 145 innings with a sub 4.00 era is solid IMO anyway, especially as a rookie. But you are correct.

M2
01-25-2008, 11:17 PM
Sure there is a difference between top 10 and someone 20-30, but is there much of a difference between the guy taken 11-15 or 16-20? For example, in 2004 the #14 and the #23 pick signed for the exact same amount.

Fact of the matter is, the supposed best chance you have each year to grab an impact talent is in the first round.

If the #20 pick wasn't magic in the 1990s (Mike Mussina, Pokey Reese, Torii Hunter, Terrence Long, Eric Milton, Adam Kennedy, C.C. Sabathia), and it was absolute magic, picks 11-15 over the years would hold a fairly large advantage over picks 16-20. It's still an advantage, but that decade-long run at #20 narrows it. The money's also going downhill from 11-15 to 16-20. Obviously there's a massive difference between picks 1-10 and picks 21-30. It's really a question of where to draw the fault line in between that. Pick any five slots in the first round and the next five, over time, will not perform as well. All first round picks were not created equal. That's draft risk assessment 101. If you really wanted to go deep, I'd suggest breaking the first round into three 10-pick groups.

The higher your pick, the higher your statistical chances of landing a quality player who does something for your team. Some subsets perform better than others on that front and we know what those subsets are on the high picks in first round.

And you really need to stop using one-off outliers in an effort to make a general statement. For instance, yes the #23 pick in 2004 (Phillip Hughes) was paid almost as much as #14 (Billy Butler). Picks 15-22 were paid more than Butler, who was taken where he was partially because the Royals were looking for a value pick. Yet if you graph the price of the picks in the first round in any season, your trend line will move steadily downward and to the right. 2004 was no different and the most notable outliers you'll find land far above the line (e.g. Weaver and Drew in 2004 on picks #12 and #15 - note they fall in that 11-15 range, not 16-20). On a top 10 pick, you can pay two or three times what a lower first round pick makes. That's a massive risk differential.

jmcclain19
01-27-2008, 01:58 PM
Back to the first posting - Under Armor just held their yearly tourney for HS talent, and all the big HS names were there - BA subscriber link to the scouting breakdowns.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/highschool/features/265475.html


Matthew Ramsey, Sr., c, Farragut HS, Knoxville: Ramsey, No. 40 on Baseball America's 2008 Top 100 High School Prospects list, was light years ahead of all other players in this event. His strong muscular build appears to be carved out of granite, and his athletic ability is remarkable for a catcher. He ran a 6.73 60-yard dash, and peaked at 93 mph during a pitching stint on Sunday.

From behind the plate Ramsey's clothes-line throws to second consistently rank in the sub 2.00-second range. Ramsey's bat and projectability may not be on par with Kyle Skipworth, the top-rated catcher in the '08 class, but he is definitely a premium talent. He is committed to Tennessee.

Highlifeman21
01-27-2008, 01:59 PM
What you think is new is real old hat to some of us. I imagine we've got people on this site can recall promises of how young pitchers won't be blown out with oppressive workloads dating back to WWII.

Anyway, here's the list of pitchers since 2000 drafted in the upper first round who have qualified for an ERA title with a sub-5.00 ERA:

Mark Prior
Jeff Francis
Paul Maholm
Jered Weaver
Justin Verlander

Go ahead, guess what they all have in common.


They weren't drafted by the Reds?

lollipopcurve
01-27-2008, 03:15 PM
Back to the first posting - Under Armor just held their yearly tourney for HS talent, and all the big HS names were there - BA subscriber link to the scouting breakdowns.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/onlin...es/265475.html


Quote:
Matthew Ramsey, Sr., c, Farragut HS, Knoxville: Ramsey, No. 40 on Baseball America's 2008 Top 100 High School Prospects list, was light years ahead of all other players in this event. His strong muscular build appears to be carved out of granite, and his athletic ability is remarkable for a catcher. He ran a 6.73 60-yard dash, and peaked at 93 mph during a pitching stint on Sunday.

From behind the plate Ramsey's clothes-line throws to second consistently rank in the sub 2.00-second range. Ramsey's bat and projectability may not be on par with Kyle Skipworth, the top-rated catcher in the '08 class, but he is definitely a premium talent. He is committed to Tennessee.

Thanks, jmc. I'll be interested to see how high these high school catchers go. Skipworth could be an intruiging talent, we'll see. Times have shown that HS catchers are risky, but with the current shortage at the position, I wonder if these kids will get teams to bite early, as the Reds did last year on Mesoraco.

AdamDunn
01-27-2008, 07:37 PM
Back to the first posting - Under Armor just held their yearly tourney for HS talent, and all the big HS names were there - BA subscriber link to the scouting breakdowns.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/highschool/features/265475.html

I like that 60 yard time. That's simply amazing.


Thanks, jmc. I'll be interested to see how high these high school catchers go. Skipworth could be an intruiging talent, we'll see. Times have shown that HS catchers are risky, but with the current shortage at the position, I wonder if these kids will get teams to bite early, as the Reds did last year on Mesoraco.

The Reds didn't bite early on Mescoraco. He was simply the best player available besides Rick Portello. Who else would you have picked besides Mescoraco that didn't cost the Reds more than $5 million?

edabbs44
01-27-2008, 08:29 PM
The Reds didn't bite early on Mescoraco. He was simply the best player available besides Rick Portello. Who else would you have picked besides Mescoraco that didn't cost the Reds more than $5 million?

Just for reference, BA had Mesoraco ranked 24th overall pre-draft.

jmcclain19
01-27-2008, 10:57 PM
Just for reference, BA had Mesoraco ranked 24th overall pre-draft.

BA didn't even have him in the Top 100 HS players in Feb of 2007

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/highschool/features/263360.html

Travis Snyder, the best hitting OF (or you could say hitter period) in the Midwest league last year and the Jays No. 1 pick, was the 27th best OF in the pre-2006 Draft listing.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/draft/features/26664.html

That just shows how far you can rocket up the draft boards

New Fever
01-28-2008, 04:30 AM
Just for reference, BA had Mesoraco ranked 24th overall pre-draft.

He was actually 14th heading into the draft. On BA's draft tracker.

RedlegJake
01-28-2008, 09:44 AM
I'd draft the best available pitcher every time with a sidelong glance at hitters. If a hitter was on board that was an obviously better overall choice then I go with the hitter. If the pitcher was equal or near equal then I pick the pitcher.

As for Stubbs, even if he develops I still call it a failed pick and stupid at the time. The Reds could have an already proven arm in their rotation right now and that is the crux.

edabbs44
01-28-2008, 09:40 PM
If anyone has the premium subscription to BA, take a look at the Angels Top 10. That's called taking advantage of the draft.

kaldaniels
01-29-2008, 12:46 AM
I think Lincecum was the better choice and probably should have gone 1, 2 or 3 in the draft.... but it is too early to say much about the 2006 draft.

I don't get your logic Doug...you think the Reds should have picked Tim L, but yet you pimp Drew Stubbs all the time. Didn't you get the memo...if you wanted Lincecum you must root for Stubbs to fail and rail against him every chance you get. :D

dougdirt
01-29-2008, 02:19 AM
I don't get your logic Doug...you think the Reds should have picked Tim L, but yet you pimp Drew Stubbs all the time. Didn't you get the memo...if you wanted Lincecum you must root for Stubbs to fail and rail against him every chance you get. :D

Must have missed that one. I miss a lot of them apparently.

M2
01-29-2008, 11:06 AM
If anyone has the premium subscription to BA, take a look at the Angels Top 10. That's called taking advantage of the draft.

How so? They've got a poor top 10. In fact, they're brutal in the 6-10 spots.

jmcclain19
01-29-2008, 02:40 PM
If anyone has the premium subscription to BA, take a look at the Angels Top 10. That's called taking advantage of the draft.

If you mean picks like Nick Adenhart, I would agree. But they've been pretty conservative the last two years, and if Conger doesn't pan out, they've got little beyond Wood & Adenhart for the forseable future.

edabbs44
01-29-2008, 02:51 PM
If you mean picks like Nick Adenhart, I would agree. But they've been pretty conservative the last two years, and if Conger doesn't pan out, they've got little beyond Wood & Adenhart for the forseable future.

Walden as well, though he is in the low minors.

fearofpopvol1
01-30-2008, 05:49 PM
I think that #7 pick is pretty damn important. Obviously, with a pick that high there is a good chance it could be an impact player assuming proper research and scouting is done. The Reds also don't receive another pick until the 80s and so it becomes even more crucial for it to be a good pick. I also agree, take the best player possible no matter what the position.

mth123
02-01-2008, 05:16 AM
Kevin Goldstein had a chat on the top 100 prospects list on Baseball Prospecus. Since I'm not sure if its premium content or not I'll recap this point of interst:

The questions was to the effect of "who do you think will be on the top of the list in 2010..." and Goldstein replied "I'll go out on a limb and say Tim Beckham.

Good call Benihana.

lollipopcurve
02-01-2008, 11:55 AM
The first 7 go like this....


1. Tampa Bay Rays
2. Pittsburgh Pirates
3. Kansas City Royals
4. Baltimore Orioles
5. San Francisco Giants
6. Florida Marlins
7. Cincinnati Reds

If past history is any judge...

1. TB -- With Friedman replacing Lamar, the emphasis is probably less on super high ceiling kids than it had been.

2. Pitt -- Cleveland-schooled Huntington takes over. I'm sure they'll consider the solid-bet collegians. (Or will there be a Trevor Crowe effect?) I see them going with an older player.

3. KC -- Atlanta-schooled Moore will not shy away from high schoolers, and KC is thin at SS. IF Beckham's stock is really high, I don't see him getting past the Royals.

4. Balt -- Guessing college bat. If Brandon Crawford comes on like I hope he does, he could go to the Os. Trades, along the natural progression of the young arms they've had all along, will have glutted them with pitching prospects.

5. Giants -- This is a system really starved for bats.

6. Marlins -- BPA. Lately they've been raking in HS arms, and they could have their pick of the litter here.

7. Reds -- I'm not optimistic that either SS (Beckham or Crawford) will get here if they have good springs. If that's how it turns out, I'll be hoping to see some arms catching fire leading up to June.

edabbs44
02-11-2008, 02:43 PM
BA has their draft preview out. Here's the only free article.


Too Tempting To Pass Up?

Draft class could help convince teams to bypass slotting

By Jim Callis
February 11, 2008

E-mail Print

The strength of the draft varies from year to year. The 2005 draft, the best this decade, featured an outstanding group of high school outfielders and multitooled college position players. In 2006, college pitchers stood out among a weak crop. Last year, prepsters outclassed the college talent, especially with everyday players.

Scouts are enthused about the 2008 draft, which will begin on June 5 with the Rays making the first pick, because of the diverse talent available. The consensus is that there are more quality college bats—not in terms of athleticism but just sheer offensive firepower—than in any year in recent memory.

Vanderbilt third baseman Pedro Alvarez, South Carolina first baseman Justin Smoak and Miami first baseman Yonder Alonso headline that group. Alvarez is the consensus No. 1 overall prospect entering the season, while Smoak and Alonso project as the first first basemen to go in the top 10 picks since the Brewers drafted Prince Fielder seventh overall in 2002.

"There are more college hitters than normal, and that's been an absolute void the last few years," an American League front-office executive said. "There's good depth in college pitching—not a lot of tremendously high ceilings, but depth. And there always are good high school guys if you're willing to take them."

Four players clearly stand above the rest at this point: Alvarez, San Diego lefthander Brian Matusz, Missouri righthander Aaron Crow and Griffin (Ga.) High shortstop Tim Beckham. Alvarez is the best hitter for both power and average in the draft. Matusz is a tall, lean southpaw who could have three plus pitches, while Crow is a more compact righty with a deadly fastball-slider combination. None of the three should require much time in the minors.

Beckham is a five-tool athlete and sticks out even more because there's no comparable player in the college ranks. Holt High (Wentzville, Mo.) righthander Tim Melville has separated himself from the rest of the high school pitchers with his plus fastball, projectable body and advanced feel for his secondary pitches and command.

Slotting Could Crumble

MLB has recommended specific bonuses for every pick in the first five rounds since 2000, and last year it tried to exert more control than ever. Believing that improved compensation for unsigned picks and a universal signing deadline would give teams more leverage, MLB reduced the slots by 10 percent across the board. But in the end, a slew of well-above-slot deals were struck shortly before the Aug. 15 deadline.

The Nationals, Orioles, Red Sox, Tigers and Yankees aggressively went over slot, either for singular talents (such as the Orioles giving Matt Wieters a $6 million bonus that is the largest up-front payment in draft history) or for multiple players.

That didn't sit well with the clubs that adhered to slotting, especially after they received assurances from MLB throughout the summer that no teams were going to ignore the guidelines. A month later, Frank Coonelly, whose job as MLB's senior vice president of labor relations included being the watchdog for draft bonuses, took over as Pirates president and announced his team would go over slot as needed.

Clubs also have noticed that the Red Sox and Yankees have used their deep pockets to build two of the game's deepest farm systems. With dissatisfaction growing, several scouting directors predict the slotting recommendation system will fall apart this year.

"You look at some of these teams toeing the line, like the Pirates and the Astros, and their general managers and scouting directors are getting fired," another AL club official said. "Frank Coonelly comes into Pittsburgh and says he's going to take the best available player. More and more organizations are going to break from the pack and call their bluff."

Will Rays Take Alvarez?

Other early storylines for the 2008 draft include:

• The Rays are the first team to own the No. 1 overall pick in consecutive years. (Before 2005, the first selection in each draft alternated between the two leagues). Though Alvarez is the consensus best prospect, Tampa Bay already has a blue-chip third baseman in Evan Longoria, the No. 3 choice in 2006. Teams at the top of the draft usually adhere to a philosophy of taking the best player regardless of position, but Alvarez isn't light years ahead of Matusz, Crow and Melville, all of whom could be more tempting to the Rays.

• If Tampa Bay does select Alvarez, Vanderbilt will become the first school ever to produce consecutive No. 1 picks. A year ago, the Rays opted for Commodores lefty David Price.

• Two clubs with dismal major league outlooks, flagging farm systems and new scouting directors have top-five picks that are crucial to their futures. The Pirates (Greg Smith) choose at No. 2 a year after alienating their fans by passing on Wieters' price tag at No. 4. In year one of their post-Barry Bonds era, the Giants (John Barr) will select fifth.

• For the second straight year, ESPN will provide television coverage of the first round of the draft.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/draft-preview/2008/265576.html

Benihana
02-11-2008, 03:25 PM
Kevin Goldstein had a chat on the top 100 prospects list on Baseball Prospecus. Since I'm not sure if its premium content or not I'll recap this point of interst:

The questions was to the effect of "who do you think will be on the top of the list in 2010..." and Goldstein replied "I'll go out on a limb and say Tim Beckham.

Good call Benihana.

;) Like I said, either Beckham or Matusz would make my day

edabbs44
02-11-2008, 03:35 PM
From today's chat:


Q: eric from houston asks:
Who do you see the Astros selecting with their pick?

A: Jim Callis: I'm getting a few of these, who will Team X pick at Slot Y . . . realize that four months before the draft, this is pure speculation. The Astros, like most everyone in the first round, are going to take the best available player. I can't see Drayton McLane going over slot, but that still gives Houston the chance to pick from guys like Eastern Kentucky LHP Christian Friedrich, Pepperdine RHP Brett Hunter and California HS RHP Gerrit Cole.



Q: Deywane from Memphis asks:
Will the Reds target a college first baseman like (Justin Smoak or Yonder Alonso) with their first round pick? They have drafted a hitter with their last 3 first round picks.

A: Jim Callis: The Reds pick seventh, so the main thing is taking the top available guy. But 1B isn't a premium position and they already have a top young 1B prospect in Joey Votto, so I can't see them taking another one. I think they'd be looking at some of the guys I mentioned with the Astros, plus Missouri HS RHP Tim Melville.

11BarryLarkin11
02-11-2008, 03:41 PM
I really like UCLA shortstop Brandon Crawford. He's got a very well rounded game and plays a very nice shortstop, so he wouldn't have to be moved to another position. I'm not sure where he is projected to go as of now, but with a good year for the pre-season #1 ranked UCLA Bruins I'd imagine that he could vault up near the top of the first round.

In addition, he'd fit right in with the Reds new draft philosophy of targeting impact players at premier defensive positions (i.e. Stubbs, Mesoraco, etc).

lollipopcurve
02-11-2008, 03:56 PM
I really like UCLA shortstop Brandon Crawford. He's got a very well rounded game and plays a very nice shortstop, so he wouldn't have to be moved to another position. I'm not sure where he is projected to go as of now, but with a good year for the pre-season #1 ranked UCLA Bruins I'd imagine that he could vault up near the top of the first round.

In addition, he'd fit right in with the Reds new draft philosophy of targeting impact players at premier defensive positions (i.e. Stubbs, Mesoraco, etc).

I'm with you on this -- see the first post in the thread. I like Crawford's LH bat. He had a tough summer. I think it's within the realm of possibility he goes either way -- up to the top part of round 1, or, if he struggles, maybe the Reds could get him in the 3rd (but that's a long way for SS with his tools to fall).

Bip Roberts
02-11-2008, 05:52 PM
I think they should pick a Catcher :ughmamoru

11BarryLarkin11
02-12-2008, 12:31 AM
I'm with you on this -- see the first post in the thread. I like Crawford's LH bat. He had a tough summer. I think it's within the realm of possibility he goes either way -- up to the top part of round 1, or, if he struggles, maybe the Reds could get him in the 3rd (but that's a long way for SS with his tools to fall).

Yeah, I think he's gonna be a good one. Whether he struggles or not in 2008, I think he's worth a draft pick.

The Reds have a lot of good infield prospects, but none that can both play a good defensive shortstop AND hit. All the ones who can hit have to be shifted to a new position and all the ones that can field can't hit the ball out of the infield.

Crawford could change all that.

camisadelgolf
02-12-2008, 10:33 AM
I hear a lot of people say, 'Because of the market, the Reds should pick nothing but pitchers in the first ten rounds or so.' Well, my response to that is that a catcher who can play good defense and hit well is more rare than a pitcher who can consistently throw 180+ innings with a sub-4.00 ERA. Therefore, I hope the Reds select only catchers in the first ten rounds of the draft; one of them is bound to make my drafting philosophy worth it.

edabbs44
02-13-2008, 12:02 AM
I hear a lot of people say, 'Because of the market, the Reds should pick nothing but pitchers in the first ten rounds or so.' Well, my response to that is that a catcher who can play good defense and hit well is more rare than a pitcher who can consistently throw 180+ innings with a sub-4.00 ERA. Therefore, I hope the Reds select only catchers in the first ten rounds of the draft; one of them is bound to make my drafting philosophy worth it.

The difference is you need 12 or so pitchers on a roster at a time.

dougdirt
02-13-2008, 12:05 AM
The difference is you need 12 or so pitchers on a roster at a time.

Still doesn't make it much less of a bad plan.

Bip Roberts
02-13-2008, 12:35 AM
Whos the best left handed pitcher in this years draft?

OnBaseMachine
02-13-2008, 12:51 AM
Whos the best left handed pitcher in this years draft?

Brian Matusz, lhp from San Diego.

Bip Roberts
02-13-2008, 01:00 AM
Brian Matusz, lhp from San Diego.

:owned: for me not even paying attention to the 1st post :(

but anyways in other words you are saying hes not going to be there probably when we pick

dougdirt
02-13-2008, 01:20 AM
:owned: for me not even paying attention to the 1st post :(

but anyways in other words you are saying hes not going to be there probably when we pick

If the draft were held today, probably not.... but there is a long high school and college schedule to be played still that will determine a whole lot of what happens in June.

Bip Roberts
02-13-2008, 01:52 AM
If the draft were held today, probably not.... but there is a long high school and college schedule to be played still that will determine a whole lot of what happens in June.

Good point

Cedric
02-13-2008, 04:14 AM
The difference is you need 12 or so pitchers on a roster at a time.

On this team you do. I loathe 12 man pitching rosters.

redhawk61
02-13-2008, 10:05 AM
For me I take either Beckman, Crawford, Martinez at the SS which could be very likely with the reds new strong up the middle draft philosophy. Unless they are either gone or they don't warrant the pick after this year. If so I would love to get Jacob Thompson RHP Virginia. Even though we need some lefty's I would find it hard to pass up a guy with a dominate low 90's sinker a plus power curve and above average slider and a change with excelent control. He could make an impact late '09 or beginning '10. That sinker would come in handy at GABP.

Benihana
02-13-2008, 10:51 AM
For me I take either Beckman, Crawford, Martinez at the SS which could be very likely with the reds new strong up the middle draft philosophy. Unless they are either gone or they don't warrant the pick after this year. If so I would love to get Jacob Thompson RHP Virginia. Even though we need some lefty's I would find it hard to pass up a guy with a dominate low 90's sinker a plus power curve and above average slider and a change with excelent control. He could make an impact late '09 or beginning '10. That sinker would come in handy at GABP.

Martinez will be converted to 3B soon after he's drafted. He's more similar to Todd Frazier, who also won't be playing SS for much longer. Beckham and maybe Crawford are the only two pure shortstops that are worthy of top 10 consideration, as of now. Of the two, Beckham is definitely the better shortstop.

WVRed
02-13-2008, 01:12 PM
IMO, this is the best power hitting class to come out in a long time. If Alonso, Smoak, or Hosmer are there, it would probably be a good investment to look there.

AdamDunn
02-13-2008, 02:14 PM
I hope Crow or Matusz. Dominic de la Osa looks like he can really rake. Does anyone have anything on him?

11larkin11
02-13-2008, 11:40 PM
I watched Smoak play last year and I was really impressed with him. I thought "wow, this kid could be in the majors someday". That was without looking at him on any site or hearing of him before. My first ever MLB draft "hey, I called that" moment, which I've done many a times in the NFL draft which I am an expert at.

jmcclain19
02-14-2008, 01:51 AM
I hope they continue the trend of getting value late. That was one of the earmarks of the Terry Reynolds Dan O'Brien era - home runs on the 1st round picks, and dismal strikeouts everywhere else. Outside of Homer and the hope that Paul Janish might be a backup Infielder one day, the 2004 draft is a total waste and other than a few hope and prayers, outside of Bruce the 2005 draft is looking pretty grim as well.

dougdirt
02-14-2008, 02:10 AM
I hope they continue the trend of getting value late. That was one of the earmarks of the Terry Reynolds Dan O'Brien era - home runs on the 1st round picks, and dismal strikeouts everywhere else. Outside of Homer and the hope that Paul Janish might be a backup Infielder one day, the 2004 draft is a total waste and other than a few hope and prayers, outside of Bruce the 2005 draft is looking pretty grim as well.

I wouldn't count out Craig Tatum, Raf Gonzalez, Phil Valiquette, Drew Anderson or Tyrell Young just yet from the 2004 draft. While Tatum may be the only every day guy of the bunch, the others could serve solid purpose to the team one day.

As for 2005.... Travis Wood, Sam Lecure and Carlos Fisher are still good prospects and had we not traded Jeff Stevens (http://firstinning.com/players/Jeffrey-Stevens-a/) (Indians converted him to reliever and he just dominated this year) and Zach Ward (http://firstinning.com/players/Zachary-Ward-a/) we would have two more potential bullpen arms. Maybe even Brandon Roberts as a future bench player.

jmcclain19
02-23-2008, 04:10 AM
I wouldn't count out Craig Tatum, Raf Gonzalez, Phil Valiquette, Drew Anderson or Tyrell Young just yet from the 2004 draft. While Tatum may be the only every day guy of the bunch, the others could serve solid purpose to the team one day.

Well - with the exception of Tatum - your incredibly more optimistic than most - all of the other four have been professionals for four seasons and have done nothing to show they are more than org fodder at this point.


As for 2005.... Travis Wood, Sam Lecure and Carlos Fisher are still good prospects and had we not traded Jeff Stevens (http://firstinning.com/players/Jeffrey-Stevens-a/) (Indians converted him to reliever and he just dominated this year) and Zach Ward (http://firstinning.com/players/Zachary-Ward-a/) we would have two more potential bullpen arms. Maybe even Brandon Roberts as a future bench player.

The first round of the draft is by far the easiest to pick - due to the fact that their skill set puts them head and shoulders above all others come draft day. This idea is fleshed out by the numbers that 1st round picks make the majors overwhelmingly more frequently than every other round in the draft. I expect (and every other fan should) that every 1st round pick a team makes should make the majors and contribute in some form.

It's the 2nd round thru 50th when you show you true skills as a team scouting out players. And if the total return from that haul of 49 players for two straight seasons is a couple of middle relievers and a bench guy - you draft grade is a huge, bold, red F.

dougdirt
02-23-2008, 01:31 PM
Drew Anderson could have a career as a utility infielder and the other guys have enough that if they continue on their paths could be bullpen guys. Sure, its not great, but its still plenty valuable when you don't have 5 million tied up in Juan Castro and Rheal Cormier.

I think you expect a little much out of the draft if getting a couple of middle relievers and a bench guy out of a draft is an F even if your first rounder succeeds.

lollipopcurve
03-15-2008, 06:11 PM
Buster Posey, catcher, Florida State?

Ex-shortstop, now an athletic C with a good RH bat. Smart kid. Generally ranked the best college catcher in the country.

He should be in the mix for that #7 pick.

sweetsport06
03-18-2008, 12:20 AM
this definately isnt anyone to use our number 1 pick on but our number 4 pick from last year, blake stouffer, who never signed with the reds. i would definately like to see the reds go after him again in the later rounds. i dont know if it was just his name or him being a switch hitter. just had a real good feeling about the kid.

JWP
03-18-2008, 02:11 AM
Funny story, I played against Pedro Alvarez in high school. He lined out to me at second base. He raked. At his high school (Horace Mann), there is a building out in right field, which served as the wall (only about 250 ft. out), and I saw him hit a ball clear over it. He was absurd.

Anyways, I'd agree that that the Reds have a lot of quality arms in the system, and could do with drafting a quality bat in the first round. If they do go with a hitter, I would definitely go with a guy coming out of college, not out of high school. I think that college players usually have better plate discipline and maturity than high school players do (two things which are hard to develop).

dougdirt
03-18-2008, 04:18 AM
Funny story, I played against Pedro Alvarez in high school. He lined out to me at second base. He raked. At his high school (Horace Mann), there is a building out in right field, which served as the wall (only about 250 ft. out), and I saw him hit a ball clear over it. He was absurd.

Anyways, I'd agree that that the Reds have a lot of quality arms in the system, and could do with drafting a quality bat in the first round. If they do go with a hitter, I would definitely go with a guy coming out of college, not out of high school. I think that college players usually have better plate discipline and maturity than high school players do (two things which are hard to develop).

Maturity doesn't really 'develop'. As for plate discipline being limited to college guys, again, if its something you can't develop, then why do college kids have it and not high school kids? Its not some magic thing you get by attending college.

edabbs44
03-18-2008, 04:35 PM
Shooter Hunt from Tulane (and from my neck of the woods) is going nuts this year.


Baseball's Shooter Hunt Repeats As C-USA Pitcher Of The Week

NEW ORLEANS, La. - After claiming his first career weekly honor seven days ago, Tulane University baseball standout Shooter Hunt turned in a repeat performance as the junior right-handed pitcher was named Conference USA Pitcher of the Week, the league office announced Monday.

A native of Wyckoff, N.J., Hunt posted 10 strikeouts and gave up just a pair of hits while throwing a season-best 8.0 innings in Friday's 3-0 victory over Oakland. The award is the second of his career and the latest in a long line of honors bestowed on him as Hunt was named Preseason All-American by Baseball America, claimed a spot on the Preseason All C-USA Team, earned a spot on the Roger Clemens Award Watch List as one of the nation's top pitchers, and was named to both the Golden Spikes and Brooks Wallace Watch List for the National Player of the Year.

Facing an Oakland team that entered the weekend hitting a robust .315, Hunt held the Golden Grizzlies to two singles and posted at least one strikeout in each inning, including two-K stanzas in the fifth and the eighth. He allowed just six base runners on the day - two via hit and four via walk - and allowed just two runners to get past second base. While the defense was perfect behind him, Hunt helped his own cause by picking off a runner at first in the sixth inning.

So far this season, Hunt has a 0.67 ERA and has a .094 opponent batting average while striking out 37 and walking 12 in 27.0 innings of work. Hunt has K'd at least one batter in 25 of his 27 innings he's thrown in 2008, including a streak of 21 consecutive stanzas dating back to his Week 2 start against Pepperdine.

Since joining the Green Wave prior to the 2007, Hunt is a combined 10-6 with a sparkling 2.20 ERA and a .206 opponent batting average. Hunt has started 19 of the 20 games he has appeared in during his Tulane career, during which time he has posted a 10.02 strikeout-per-nine-inning average and a 3.36 strikeout-to-walk ratio after fanning 141 batters and walking just 42 in 126.2 innings.

lollipopcurve
03-19-2008, 12:04 PM
Buster Posey, catcher, Florida State?

Ex-shortstop, now an athletic C with a good RH bat. Smart kid. Generally ranked the best college catcher in the country.

He should be in the mix for that #7 pick.

Cover story on Posey now up on BA's Web site. Reds should be considering this kid.

edabbs44
03-19-2008, 11:43 PM
Cover story on Posey now up on BA's Web site. Reds should be considering this kid.

I know that you shouldn't draft for need and you should just worry about drafting the BPA and all that. But drafting catchers in the first round 2 years in a row would be ludicrous.

RedlegJake
03-20-2008, 01:59 AM
I still want a pitcher. This a #7 pick - that means a shot at a top tier arm and hopefully, this will be our highest pick in a long while. Also their is no second round pick to nab a pitcher with. Unless a hitter just blows me away as the obvious best player I take the best college pitcher available.

lollipopcurve
03-20-2008, 09:50 AM
I know that you shouldn't draft for need and you should just worry about drafting the BPA and all that. But drafting catchers in the first round 2 years in a row would be ludicrous.

I disagree. Mesoraco is no sure thing. Posey looks to have lots of tools behind the plate and very good bat. Excellent intangibles as well. Solidifying the middle of the diamond is job #1 for the Reds, now that they've got some young pitching lined up. When you look at C-SS-2B-CF, the organization is on shaky ground. Were they to draft Posey and were he and Mesoraco to both develop nicely, you've got a very valuable trade chip, because the catching position is very weak throughout baseball.

Without a 2nd rounder this year, the Reds need to get return on their first round pick, and I think Posey and the big 1B bats (Smoak, Alonso, Hosmer) are as risk-averse as you can get this year.

nate
03-20-2008, 10:04 AM
Shooter Hunt from Tulane (and from my neck of the woods) is going nuts this year.

I hope they draft him just because his name is Shooter Hunt.

edabbs44
03-20-2008, 11:36 AM
I disagree. Mesoraco is no sure thing. Posey looks to have lots of tools behind the plate and very good bat. Excellent intangibles as well. Solidifying the middle of the diamond is job #1 for the Reds, now that they've got some young pitching lined up. When you look at C-SS-2B-CF, the organization is on shaky ground. Were they to draft Posey and were he and Mesoraco to both develop nicely, you've got a very valuable trade chip, because the catching position is very weak throughout baseball.

Without a 2nd rounder this year, the Reds need to get return on their first round pick, and I think Posey and the big 1B bats (Smoak, Alonso, Hosmer) are as risk-averse as you can get this year.

I just think that it would be ludicrous to take a catcher in the first round two years in a row. If they ended up being Bench and Berra that would be great, but right now they need to focus on pitching.

The last two drafts the top pitchers they have gone after are Lotzkar and Watson. Not exactly the best in show going into the draft. Without a 2nd rounder this year it would be nice to see them replenish a bit with a top tier starter.

M2
03-20-2008, 12:01 PM
I've got no problem taking Posey if he's a Wieters-type prospect.

That said, I find it hard to believe the top prospect available when the Reds pick won't be a college arm.

princeton
03-20-2008, 12:04 PM
I just think that it would be ludicrous to take a catcher in the first round two years in a row.

you never know what the market will be in five years, but having two catcher prospects right now is gold. You can get a lot for one of 'em.

but Reds draft for need. If Mesoraco hits this spring, they won't look at a catcher.

OnBaseMachine
03-20-2008, 12:18 PM
If only the Reds hadn't went on that hot streak in the second half...that hurt them more in the long run. If they had continued stinking up the joint and finished with a top three pick then we would be guaranteed to land one of Pedro Alvarez, Aaron Crow, or Brian Matusz. Matusz is the guy I really wanted but it's highly unlikely he falls to the Reds at #7.

edabbs44
03-20-2008, 12:22 PM
you never know what the market will be in five years, but having two catcher prospects right now is gold. You can get a lot for one of 'em.

but Reds draft for need. If Mesoraco hits this spring, they won't look at a catcher.

What's better, having excess catching or excess pitching?

Gimme the pitching every time.

lollipopcurve
03-20-2008, 12:36 PM
Matusz is the guy I really wanted but it's highly unlikely he falls to the Reds at #7.

Early word is that he hasn't thrown well. Could be good for the Reds, or bad.

College arms are around at the top of the draft (Crow, Scheppers, Friedrich, Matusz and others) but they're not considered a great crop compared to other years. You've got some guys with high velocity, but in general they don't have the knockout second pitch and/or three-pitch arsenal that makes a guy a solid rotation candidate (as opposed to a future bullpenner). Matusz looked like the guy with best combo of stuff and pitchability, but as noted he hasn't been fast out of the gate. To me, because pitchers are generally riskier than hitters, I'm always OK with the team looking elsewhere, especially with the way the system looks now.


I've got no problem taking Posey if he's a Wieters-type prospect.

Posey is not Wieters in that he doesn't have big pop. But he's better defensively. He's a line drive RH hitter who has shown great contact skills. His power is way up so far this year. Great arm, excellent athleticism for a catcher -- he came to Florida State as a HS all-american SS, and he's spent time on the mound at FSU throwing high 80's-low 90's. Intangibles (which I do value) are excellent. He's got that "baseball player" label that George Grande is so fond of. And Chris Buckley likes those guys.

As the scouting reports get better closer to the draft, I'm sure his warts will be reported. But right now he looks like a kid who could be rising.

princeton
03-20-2008, 12:36 PM
it'd be nice to have any catcher

OnBaseMachine
03-20-2008, 12:37 PM
Right now I really like Brian Matusz, Pedro Alvarez, Aaron Crow, Tim Beckham, Christian Friedrich, Justin Smoak, Paul Hosmer, or Yonder Alonso. One of those guys will have to be avilable when the Reds pick. I really like disciplined power hitters - Alonso, Hosmer, and Smoak fit that bill.

Highlifeman21
03-20-2008, 12:41 PM
it'd be nice to have any catcher

Isn't that what we did last year?

lollipopcurve
03-20-2008, 12:44 PM
Isn't that what we did last year?

Maybe, maybe not.

princeton
03-20-2008, 12:46 PM
Isn't that what we did last year?

we'll get back to you on that

Highlifeman21
03-20-2008, 12:51 PM
we'll get back to you on that

Seems like last year, they drafted a catcher to draft a catcher. Granted, we need a catcher, but in consecutive years the Reds missed the boat by not taking the best available talent on the board at the time.

lollipopcurve
03-20-2008, 12:54 PM
Seems like last year, they drafted a catcher to draft a catcher. Granted, we need a catcher, but in consecutive years the Reds missed the boat by not taking the best available talent on the board at the time.

BPA is in the eye of the beholder.

OnBaseMachine
03-20-2008, 01:06 PM
BPA is in the eye of the beholder.

Exactly. It's not like Mesoraco was a reach or something. Some folks thought he could possibly go as high as number four to Pirates after having very impressive workouts with wood bats. I remember a few of the mock drafts stating the Reds would love for Mesoraco to fall to them at 15 but he probably wouldn't make it that far. This kid was a lot like Jay Bruce was three years ago - Bruce was a little bit of an unknown and was only expected to be a 4/5th round draft pick but he had a great senior HS season, impressive workouts with wood bats and then shot up the boards. Luckily the Reds grabbed him with the 12th pick and now we have a franchise type player. Mesoraco was the same, he was only considered a second round player and then had the great senior HS season and great workouts and really shot up the board. Let's hope he pans out the way Bruce did. He's got the tools to be a star - solid power expected to develop into 20-25 HR power, great catch and throws skills, average speed, and he doesn't swing at bad balls. Sounds a lot like Russell Martin, who scouts have compared him to.

OnBaseMachine
04-02-2008, 02:34 PM
One guy who is really starting to jump up the charts is Fresno State RHP Tanner Scheppers. He's got the perfect power pitchers build at 6'4" and 200 pounds. So far in the 2008 season he has thrown 44.2 innings while allowing 37 hits with a 15 BB/64 K rate and a 2.22 ERA. Right now his fastball sits in the 92-95 mph range but he has room for more velocity as he matures and he also mixes in a plus slider and a changeup. This is a guy who I'd like to see the Reds consider with the #7 pick if guys like Matusz, Beckham, Crow, or Smoak are gone. If he turns out anything like the last power pitcher to be chosen in the first round from Fresno State then he'll be pretty darn good. Matt Garza.

Benihana
04-02-2008, 02:39 PM
I'll say it again- I would LOVE to get Beckham or Matusz. However I think they're going to be long gone by 7. I wouldn't be surprised to see us end up with Justin Smoak, and I wouldn't be unhappy with that either.

edabbs44
04-07-2008, 10:18 AM
From Ask BA today:


What direction do you see the Reds going with their first pick at No. 7? Do you think new special advisor Walt Jocketty will have any influence on the pick and the rest of their draft?

Adam Canada
Charleston, W.Va.

First, my standard caveat on speculation two months in advance of the draft: The following is an educated guess, not any inside scoop. Teams haven't started zeroing in on guys yet.

The four players who have separated themselves from the rest of the pack—Vanderbilt third baseman Pedro Alvarez, San Diego lefthander Brian Matusz, Missouri righty Aaron Crow and Tim Beckham—all figure to be gone by the time the Reds pick. The next two players on our midseason Top 50 list are first basemen, Florida high schooler Eric Hosmer and South Carolina's Justin Smoak, but Cincinnati already has a long-term first baseman in Joey Votto.

The Reds took catcher Devin Mesoraco with their 2007 first-rounder, so they won't go for another backstop (Florida State's Buster Posey or California prepster Kyle Skipworth) with their top choice this year. The only position player who would make much sense is Gordon Beckham, and I think Cincinnati is more likely to select a pitcher. The three top candidates at this point are all righthanders: Tulane's Shooter Hunt, Fresno State's Tanner Scheppers and Holt High's (Wentzville, Mo.) Tim Melville. Eastern Kentucky lefthander Christian Friedrich could factor into the mix, but I like the righties more.

Jocketty won't have much influence on the Reds' draft. As general manager of the Cardinals, he wasn't very involved in St. Louis' drafts, and Cincinnati lets scouting director Chris Buckley pretty much run his own show.

princeton
04-07-2008, 11:45 AM
Gordan Beckham wouldn't be a complete shocker given the first round choices in 2006 and 2007. He'd be the need pick. Maybe the Reds would even set up a pre-draft, nonbinding agreement for him to sign well below slot.

just this once, though, I'd prefer value over need. Pretty please?

edabbs44
04-07-2008, 11:52 AM
Gordan Beckham wouldn't be a complete shocker given the first round choices in 2006 and 2007. He'd be the need pick. Maybe the Reds would even set up a pre-draft, nonbinding agreement for him to sign well below slot.

just this once, though, I'd prefer value over need. Pretty please?

If there is a front line college pitcher there, I hope they nab him.

Benihana
04-07-2008, 12:07 PM
I definitely wouldn't count on Alvarez, Beckham, Matusz and Crow all being off the board by #7. Look at the past five drafts, and the top four consensus talents have never gone in the top four picks. Guys always fall for signability (as well as other) reasons. Hopefully one of those four, particularly Beckham or Matusz, can fall. Alvarez's slide has already begun due to his injury.

lollipopcurve
04-07-2008, 03:51 PM
I don't know why he seems so sure the Reds won't take a catcher. Mesoraco is no sure thing, and Posey and Skipworth are having excellent springs. Quality catching may be more scarce than quality pitching these days.

dougdirt
04-07-2008, 03:54 PM
I don't know why he seems so sure the Reds won't take a catcher. Mesoraco is no sure thing, and Posey and Skipworth are having excellent springs. Quality catching may be more scarce than quality pitching these days.

Probably just due to the nature of it. You aren't likely to take two catchers in back to back drafts. Its not like a SS, OF or pitcher where they can all play different position (pitchers you need 5, so not exactly a different position... but you get the point). I am sure the Reds will probably draft 2 or 3 catchers this year, but I doubt it will be in the first three rounds.

dougdirt
04-08-2008, 04:42 AM
After watching Crow pitch tonight, I don't want the Reds to draft him. I am not a fan of his mechanics at all.

Benihana
04-08-2008, 10:35 AM
After watching Crow pitch tonight, I don't want the Reds to draft him. I am not a fan of his mechanics at all.

Like I said, let's hope for Beckham or Matusz. Either one would be ideal.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-08-2008, 01:53 PM
I have no problem with drafting a sure-thing bat (Alonso, Smoak), even if they are 1B.

I'm not convinced Votto has the power for 1B and could see him being pushed to LF (if they don't re-sign Dunn) anyway.

You somehow make room for a bat like Smoak or Alonso. Alonso's bio also says he can play 1B or 3B.

updated stats (thru 4-7):

Smoak - - 30 G, 109 AB, 7 HR, 24 RBI, .500 OBP, .624 SLG, 1.124 OPS
Alonso - - 28 G, 88 AB, 6 HR, 28 RBI, .548 OBP, .693 SLG, 1.241 OPS

BuckeyeRedleg
04-08-2008, 01:59 PM
By the way, it's still early but Blake Stouffer may end up regretting not signing last year.

His current line (for his SR. year at A&M):

.239 average, 3 HR, 23 RBI, .747 OPS

AdamDunn
04-08-2008, 02:15 PM
Given how thin pitching the Reds have in A- and below, I'd like the Reds to get a pitcher. However, I hope Alvarez drops due to his injury.

OnBaseMachine
04-16-2008, 02:57 PM
This mock draft has the Reds selecting HS RHPer Gerritt Cole. I've read some nice things about him - his fastball touches 96 and throws a nice slider and changeup. Baseball America compared him to Matt Cain. He wouldn't be an awful pick but I prefer a college pitcher.

http://www.mymlbdraft.com/MLB-Mock-Draft-2008

lollipopcurve
04-16-2008, 03:48 PM
This mock draft has the Reds selecting HS RHPer Gerritt Cole. I've read some nice things about him - his fastball touches 96 and throws a nice slider and changeup. Baseball America compared him to Matt Cain. He wouldn't be an awful pick but I prefer a college pitcher.

This draft doesn't match up very well with what BA has been saying about who's hot/not for the first round. (Harold Martinez is way too high, Crow too low, Posey way too low, etc.) I seem to recall Cole being dinged lately for high-risk mechanics.

OnBaseMachine
04-21-2008, 04:12 PM
Draft Buzz: Rays Narrow List For First Pick
April 11th, 2008 · 2 Comments

By Kiley McDaniel

Following the quasi-news of the Boras clients’ demands, Saber-Scouting’s coverage of the draft, from the rumors and innuendo side of things, has now kicked into full gear. After conversations with a number of baseball people, we have a draft buzz update chock full of information.

Inside: The Rays narrow the list for the first pick, a heavy favorite for #1, a bunch of hot bats angling for the top 10, and a young Derek Jeter, all after the jump…

The Rays own the first pick in this draft this June and one source with knowledge of the Rays thinking noted that the club is intent on taking a position player with the first overall pick. Granted, it’s still early and things could very well change as the draft approaches, but the candidates under consideration are Georgia prep SS Tim Beckham, Vanderbilt 3B Pedro Alvarez, and Georgia SS Gordon Beckham, with the latter Beckham being a clear third amongst these three.

That being said, if there’s a bat with some serious helium this spring, UGA’s offensive powerhouse Gordon Beckham is the man. (He’s the Beckham on the left in the graphic above, for those who are already confused.) He began the season with some momentum after a stellar showing in the Cape Cod League this summer, but has really shot up draft boards with a .427/.513/.855 line through 131 at-bats, with 15 HR, 10 for 11 in stolen bases, and 18 walks to 11 strikeouts. He’s gotten the token mention as longshot choice at #1 overall but his momentum, premium position, potentially quick-moving bat, and low-risk profile add up to the buzz that he could hit his way into the top 5.

Covering all of our Beckham bases, Tim Beckham (the one on the right in the graphic above) has emerged as the near-consensus top prospect thus far. Phrases like “franchise shortstop,” “Edgar Renteria, at least,” and “B.J. Upton, but in the infield” have been tossed around, and he seems like a perfect fit for the Rays with a glut of young pitching and corner talent.

As reported here earlier, Florida prep 1B Eric Hosmer’s agent Scott Boras is allegedly seeking a $7 million bonus, which would be a record bonus amount. At first glance, anything more than $3-$4 million seems completely ridiculous for any high school first baseman, but a few factors might make that lofty number seem more realistic.

Former-Georgia Tech catcher Matt Wieters received a $6 million bonus from Baltimore in last year’s draft and scouts are universal in taking Hosmer’s bat over Wieters’. Obviously, Wieters’ much-more-challenging defensive position and Hosmer’s not-so-challenging position factor in as well, but if a team believes in Hosmer’s bat, in the draft, Boras tends to get what he wants, or at least close to it. In that same vein, teams are seeing more and more elite draftees (usually over-slot types) making impacts quickly in the big leagues, which goes a long way to giving GMs and scouting directors more job security. Additionally, there are rumblings that the slotting system could get beaten like a red-headed stepchild in this draft as more teams join the big spenders in simply drafting the best player available. Paying Hosmer $7 million still seems on the high side, but paying him $5 million, for instance, considering these factors, doesn’t seem quite so crazy anymore.

Two more college bats making a serious move up draft boards are Florida State catcher Buster Posey and South Carolina first baseman Justin Smoak. Posey has drawn some Jason Kendall (pre-gruesome ankle injury) comparisons and has also drawn a lot of interest from teams drafting from 5-10. Given that catchers always go a few spots earlier than they maybe should, Posey going in the top 10-12 choices seems like a safe bet. Smoak has gotten some mixed reviews, much of that being a function of a tough summer with wood bats for Team USA, and some being because scouts were watching him so much it was tough not to pick him apart. But now we’re in crosschecker season and Smoak is impressing the right people at the right time and getting some Mark Teixeira comparisons thrown his way. Some say he won’t get out of the top 5, others say the glut of first baseman could push him down as far as 10th. What is clear is that he’s getting hot at the right time, in front of the right people.

One last player doing all he can move up in the first round is Sarasota (FL) High SS Casey Kelly. Like Smoak, he’s been on watch lists for this draft for two years and also like Smoak, coming into the season scouts started knocking parts of his game almost because they saw him too much and had to think of something different to say after awhile. He’s gained some momentum this spring with his silky-smooth defense and his athletic 6′3 frame. There are no doubts he’ll stick at shortstop and some have said he could play shortstop in the big leagues right now. (I saw him at the Sarasota Classic—scouting report on the way—and do not disagree). Along with a sound approach at the plate, a history of hitting versus good competition, and a dynamic personality, Kelly has endeared himself to scouts and drawn some Derek Jeter comparisons. Kelly also showed a low 90’s fastball and flashed a plus slider on the mound this weekend with multiple team executives in attendance. There are teams in the mid first-round showing heavy interest and with franchise shortstop upside and a scholarship to play QB at Tennessee in the fall, he may be a candidate for an out-of-the-box deal to teams like Detroit or the Yankees.

http://www.saberscouting.com/2008/04/11/draftbuzz1-2/#more-70

Benihana
04-21-2008, 04:37 PM
Very interesting article.

I've always loved Tim Beckham, but maybe I could settle for Gordon. As I've said before, I aslo wouldn't be unhappy with Matusz or Smoak (or Alvarez, for that matter.)

It would be interesting to see/hear a comparison of Smoak, Alvarez, and Hosmer.

OnBaseMachine
04-21-2008, 04:43 PM
I would be happy with any of the following: Pedro Alvarez, Aaron Crow, Brian Matusz, Tim Beckham, Gordon Beckham, Eric Hosmer, Justin Smoak, or Tanner Scheppers. Brian Matusz is my number one target - a big lefty with three plus pitches who could move quickly.

Benihana
04-21-2008, 04:47 PM
I would be happy with any of the following: Pedro Alvarez, Aaron Crow, Brian Matusz, Tim Beckham, Gordon Beckham, Eric Hosmer, Justin Smoak, or Tanner Scheppers. Brian Matusz is my number one target - a big lefty with three plus pitches who could move quickly.

Me too (and he has been for a full year now.) Unfortunately, I doubt he slides out of the top five. I like your list, although I'm not quite sure about Scheppers or Crow.

lollipopcurve
04-21-2008, 04:54 PM
Casey Kelly is the son of Pat Kelly, former sidekick to Pete Mackanin in the Reds dugout.

This is going to be a very interesting pick by the Reds. I still like Posey, but I like a lot of the hitters in the running, too. Matusz is the only arm I'd really like at this point.

redhawk61
04-21-2008, 05:03 PM
Well my pick is doing fairly good so far this year

Christian Friedrich LHP EKU
4-1, 1.95 ERA, 8GS, 50.2 innings, 71K's, 21 BB's, Opps average .149

Benihana
04-24-2008, 12:24 PM
From Gammons' latest blog:

• With the dearth of catching throughout the game, don't be surprised if the Rays take Florida State catcher Buster Posey -- a converted shortstop -- with the first pick in the June draft.

That would be great! One less spot for Matusz, Alvarez, Smoak, or the Beckhams to go.

lollipopcurve
04-24-2008, 12:28 PM
From Gammons' latest blog:

• With the dearth of catching throughout the game, don't be surprised if the Rays take Florida State catcher Buster Posey -- a converted shortstop -- with the first pick in the June draft.

That would be great! One less spot for Matusz, Alvarez, Smoak, or the Beckhams to go.

I've been talking Posey for weeks, and I'd still like to see the Reds take him. Never thought he's rocket this far up.

Warming to Smoak. Love the switch hitting power with decent defense.

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 01:13 PM
Warming to Smoak. Love the switch hitting power with decent defense.

Mark Teixeira?

Benihana
04-24-2008, 01:36 PM
Mark Teixeira?

Yep, I'll take it.

Or Matusz (Glavine)
Or T.Beckham (B.Upton)
Or G.Beckham (Tulowitzki)
Or Alvarez (Cabrera)


Or C.Gruler (Seaver) :p:

BuckeyeRedleg
04-24-2008, 03:25 PM
Updated stats for Smoak and Alonso:

Smoak - - 42 G, 160 AB, 16 HR, 48 RBI, .502 OBP, .781 SLG, 1.283 OPS

Alonso - - 38 G, 124 AB, 11 HR, 42 RBI, .548 OBP, .742 SLG, 1.290 OPS

At this time, Smoak is my pick.