PDA

View Full Version : thumbs still bad?



princeton
05-18-2008, 07:20 AM
Mesoraco: 3 for 22 at Dayton (all singles) following an underwhelming introduction last year.

the good news for Devin is that 1. everyone hits at Billings and 2. if he does NOT hit at Billings, then he can get an early start on alternative career plans

NJReds
05-18-2008, 08:39 AM
If he was 12 for 22 with 4 HR, I wouldn't put him in the Hall of Fame. I'm not ready to call him a bust after 22 ABs, either.

cincyinco
05-18-2008, 11:01 AM
And just as it began with stubbs, so will it begin with devin. Welcome to redszone.

edabbs44
05-18-2008, 11:03 AM
And just as it began with stubbs, so will it begin with devin. Welcome to redszone.

Mesoraco will get a lot more leniency than Stubbs ever did b/c of his age.

In a couple of years, that's when the fangs come out.

dougdirt
05-18-2008, 11:06 AM
Mesoraco will get a lot more leniency than Stubbs ever did b/c of his age.

In a couple of years, that's when the fangs come out.

You sure about that? Mesoraco has already been ripped because he:

is a HS catcher taken in the first round

from a HS in Pennsylvania

wasn't a college player

didn't perform in rookie ball while injured

isn't having the best week stretch ever and being told that if he doesn't hit in Billings he might as well call it a career.

Screwball
05-18-2008, 11:16 AM
22 ABs? Really?

Tommyjohn25
05-18-2008, 11:23 AM
22 ABs? Really?

:bowrofl: Seriously. This place makes me smile sometimes.

mth123
05-18-2008, 12:01 PM
He belongs at Billings anyway. His performance at Dayton doesn't influence me at all unless he starts killing the league..

gedred69
05-18-2008, 01:13 PM
It is clear, that the reason the Reds pulled him from instructional/extended ST, (whatever it's called), to play at Dayton before the late June season start at Billings, was to get him in real action, and to see exactly where he is at, as he had bum thumbs, and couldn't really show much at GCL last yr. It looks like he exactly where he could be predicted, a year behind guys that have had playing time at the college level. We all would have loved to see him do well at Dayton, but fact is, he apparently isn't at that level,---yet. I give him 2 years to show what he can be. Keep in mind, he had limited hitting experience last year with the thumbs, so he really didn't get to work on "getting it", and he's very young compared to the rest in that league.

RedlegJake
05-18-2008, 04:40 PM
Yeah, I'm not jumping off the Mesaroco boat just yet. There is plenty of time yet for him to learn and adjust. I'll still bet he turns it on before the summer is over.

Screwball
05-18-2008, 05:09 PM
You sure about that? Mesoraco has already been ripped because he:

is a HS catcher taken in the first round

from a HS in Pennsylvania

wasn't a college player

didn't perform in rookie ball while injured

isn't having the best week stretch ever and being told that if he doesn't hit in Billings he might as well call it a career.

I'm just glad Lincecum wasn't taken after him...

M2
05-18-2008, 05:48 PM
He belongs at Billings anyway.

That's my take too, but it's part of the problem with Mesoraco. He turns 20 in another month and, to date, it's hard to identify any part of his game that's ready for A ball.

So far he's all caution flags. I don't think it's unfair to acknowledge that or to be disappointed that the Reds' first round pick from last year so far hasn't done anything to justify his selection. Maybe it will all work out for the best, but, seeing that he was a risky selection in the first place, it would be nice if he could have a stretch where he isn't awful.

WMR
05-18-2008, 05:58 PM
I think he was a crappy pick, but still, trying to make any sort of statement or draw any sort of overarching conclusions after TWENTY-TWO freakin' ABs is pretty damn weak.

M2
05-18-2008, 06:07 PM
Just for the sake of information, here's a list of first rounders drafted after Mesoraco who are looking fairly tasty at the moment:

Peter Kozma (http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/?pl_id=34798)
Tim Alderson (http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/?pl_id=28682)
Aaron Poreda (http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/?pl_id=80587)
James Simmons (http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/?pl_id=39129)
Rick Porcello (http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/?pl_id=37656)
Ben Revere (http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/?pl_id=38047)

It's not a huge list, but there is one guy there who's probably already at top 10 prospect.

Patrick Bateman
05-18-2008, 06:34 PM
The guy I wanted, Kevin Ahrens, isn't exactly lighting it up either.

Mes is going to be a huge work in progress, and I agree, he should be doing the learning in a league that matches his skill level. He showed no reason to suggest he was ready for A-ball last year, and clearly that hasn't changed.

princeton
05-18-2008, 08:05 PM
yep, the data are not all in, but Billings will be telling. Too bad we don't get the Billings data BEFORE we draft in the first round next month.

*BaseClogger*
05-18-2008, 08:35 PM
Just for the sake of information, here's a list of first rounders drafted after Mesoraco who are looking fairly tasty at the moment:

Peter Kozma (http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/?pl_id=34798)
Tim Alderson (http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/?pl_id=28682)
Aaron Poreda (http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/?pl_id=80587)
James Simmons (http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/?pl_id=39129)
Rick Porcello (http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/?pl_id=37656)
Ben Revere (http://www.baseballamerica.com/statistics/players/cards/?pl_id=38047)

It's not a huge list, but there is one guy there who's probably already at top 10 prospect.

Porcello?

edabbs44
05-18-2008, 10:14 PM
Porcello?

Yeah...he would have been awfully nice to have in the system right now.

Will M
05-18-2008, 10:14 PM
let me get this straight. he is 19 years old. he is less than a year removed from high school. and some people think he is a bust? give the guy a break.
honestly, there are a lot of 'fans' on this board who are 100% negative 100% of the time.

M2
05-19-2008, 12:57 AM
let me get this straight. he is 19 years old. he is less than a year removed from high school. and some people think he is a bust? give the guy a break.
honestly, there are a lot of 'fans' on this board who are 100% negative 100% of the time.

If you can't actually discuss the merits or demerits of Mesoraco's game, I'd suggest resisting the impulse to type nonsense like the above.

WMR
05-19-2008, 04:14 AM
If you can't actually discuss the merits or demerits of Mesoraco's game, I'd suggest resisting the impulse to type nonsense like the above.

:lol:

RedlegJake
05-19-2008, 07:21 AM
Okay, now it's going to be the cry "We could have had Porcello instead of Devin" for endless months and years ad nauseum. We're still in the throes of all the thrashing about "we could have had Lincecum over Stubbs"

2005 Jay Bruce. We could have had Jacob Ellsbury? Did we win this one?
2004 Homer Bailey. We could have had Wade Townsend or Philip Hughes. Another maybe we won but then agin maybe we didn't
2003 Ryan Wagner. We could have had Chad Billingsley.
2002 Chris Gruler. We could have had Prince Fielder or Scott Kazmir
2001 Jeremy Sowers who we didn't even sign. We could have had Bobby Crosby
2000 David Espinosa We could have had Adam Wainwright
1999 Ty Howington We could have had Jason Jennings
1998 Austin Kearns but we could have had Brad Lidge and still had Adam Dunn 2nd rd
1997 Brandon Larson We could have had Lance Berkman
1996 John Oliver We could have had Jimmy Rollins

The same kind of futile exercise can be done for every team in baseball every year. And every year there are plenty of fans who make the right pick and cuss their team's inability to see the future. Some years like the Sowers pick, are just inexcusable punts but most of the time its a crapshoot. For all the Lincecum fever and angst there were lots of people who thought he was an arm blowout waiting to happen, for others it was his size. After Howington and Gruler, and the string of years with pitchers blowing out like Gardner, Pauly and Basham, I think the Reds were shy of pitchers with mechanical issues. There is also the fact that there were plenty of "sure thing" picks that fans and scouts wanted that didn't work out - just look at how many picks before the Reds picked that haven't panned out. The idea that a draft was unsuccessful before a player either hangs it up or makes his mark in the Show is premature. The calls about Stubbs, and Mesaraco, won't be proven "bad" until either one quits or makes it. The fact there were better or faster-to-the-bigs players taken after them is an indictment you can make for almost every team, almost every year. Take drafts as a body of work from round one to the end. The Reds seem to have drafted strongly for the last 3 or 4 years put that way. It shows in the depth. Whether all those guys make it is still to be seen.

Cooper
05-19-2008, 08:38 AM
I haven't seen him play, but have tracked his small sample size stats. I saw all the info about his abilities when he was drafted, but i don't trust scouts all the time. They tend to have a pack mentality.

Has anybody seen him play in person or tv? Would like to hear what folks think after seeing him in person.

Does he look like a catcher? Or is he just an athelete behind home plate?
What are his natural abilities (the reason he got drafted)? Does he have a quick bat? Good foot work? A strong arm?

Will M
05-19-2008, 09:08 AM
If you can't actually discuss the merits or demerits of Mesoraco's game, I'd suggest resisting the impulse to type nonsense like the above.

sorry. you are the one who is off base here.

as i said there are people who are picking on this kid due to the fact that he is off to a slow start to his big league career. they point out someone who we could have drafted instead. wow, that is hard. considering guys like Pujols and Piazza were 40th round draft picks then every GM in baseball is a dolt.
these are the same guys who focus on the negative aspects of the Reds all the time. if we were 40-1 they would find fault. what exactly is the point?

Will M
05-19-2008, 09:11 AM
Okay, now it's going to be the cry "We could have had Porcello instead of Devin" for endless months and years ad nauseum. We're still in the throes of all the thrashing about "we could have had Lincecum over Stubbs"

2005 Jay Bruce. We could have had Jacob Ellsbury? Did we win this one?
2004 Homer Bailey. We could have had Wade Townsend or Philip Hughes. Another maybe we won but then agin maybe we didn't
2003 Ryan Wagner. We could have had Chad Billingsley.
2002 Chris Gruler. We could have had Prince Fielder or Scott Kazmir
2001 Jeremy Sowers who we didn't even sign. We could have had Bobby Crosby
2000 David Espinosa We could have had Adam Wainwright
1999 Ty Howington We could have had Jason Jennings
1998 Austin Kearns but we could have had Brad Lidge and still had Adam Dunn 2nd rd
1997 Brandon Larson We could have had Lance Berkman
1996 John Oliver We could have had Jimmy Rollins

The same kind of futile exercise can be done for every team in baseball every year. And every year there are plenty of fans who make the right pick and cuss their team's inability to see the future. Some years like the Sowers pick, are just inexcusable punts but most of the time its a crapshoot. For all the Lincecum fever and angst there were lots of people who thought he was an arm blowout waiting to happen, for others it was his size. After Howington and Gruler, and the string of years with pitchers blowing out like Gardner, Pauly and Basham, I think the Reds were shy of pitchers with mechanical issues. There is also the fact that there were plenty of "sure thing" picks that fans and scouts wanted that didn't work out - just look at how many picks before the Reds picked that haven't panned out. The idea that a draft was unsuccessful before a player either hangs it up or makes his mark in the Show is premature. The calls about Stubbs, and Mesaraco, won't be proven "bad" until either one quits or makes it. The fact there were better or faster-to-the-bigs players taken after them is an indictment you can make for almost every team, almost every year. Take drafts as a body of work from round one to the end. The Reds seem to have drafted strongly for the last 3 or 4 years put that way. It shows in the depth. Whether all those guys make it is still to be seen.

well said. i think it takes years to evaluate a draft. since some of these guys are 18 years old a draft should be evaluated 5-10 ( yes 10 ) years later.
it is too early to say whether wayne's ( or any teams ) 2006 or 2007 draft was good or bad.

podgejeff_
05-19-2008, 09:18 AM
Okay, now it's going to be the cry "We could have had Porcello instead of Devin" for endless months and years ad nauseum. We're still in the throes of all the thrashing about "we could have had Lincecum over Stubbs"

2005 Jay Bruce. We could have had Jacob Ellsbury? Did we win this one?
2004 Homer Bailey. We could have had Wade Townsend or Philip Hughes. Another maybe we won but then agin maybe we didn't
2003 Ryan Wagner. We could have had Chad Billingsley.
2002 Chris Gruler. We could have had Prince Fielder or Scott Kazmir
2001 Jeremy Sowers who we didn't even sign. We could have had Bobby Crosby
2000 David Espinosa We could have had Adam Wainwright
1999 Ty Howington We could have had Jason Jennings
1998 Austin Kearns but we could have had Brad Lidge and still had Adam Dunn 2nd rd
1997 Brandon Larson We could have had Lance Berkman
1996 John Oliver We could have had Jimmy Rollins

The same kind of futile exercise can be done for every team in baseball every year. And every year there are plenty of fans who make the right pick and cuss their team's inability to see the future. Some years like the Sowers pick, are just inexcusable punts but most of the time its a crapshoot. For all the Lincecum fever and angst there were lots of people who thought he was an arm blowout waiting to happen, for others it was his size. After Howington and Gruler, and the string of years with pitchers blowing out like Gardner, Pauly and Basham, I think the Reds were shy of pitchers with mechanical issues. There is also the fact that there were plenty of "sure thing" picks that fans and scouts wanted that didn't work out - just look at how many picks before the Reds picked that haven't panned out. The idea that a draft was unsuccessful before a player either hangs it up or makes his mark in the Show is premature. The calls about Stubbs, and Mesaraco, won't be proven "bad" until either one quits or makes it. The fact there were better or faster-to-the-bigs players taken after them is an indictment you can make for almost every team, almost every year. Take drafts as a body of work from round one to the end. The Reds seem to have drafted strongly for the last 3 or 4 years put that way. It shows in the depth. Whether all those guys make it is still to be seen.

Excellent post. The constant whining about the ultimate sports crapshoot draft, the MLB draft, is kind of pointless. You can't really complain about the way we've been drafting when we have a top half farm system even after our big four completely graduate (and a top five prior to that).

TRF
05-19-2008, 09:26 AM
Okay, now it's going to be the cry "We could have had Porcello instead of Devin" for endless months and years ad nauseum. We're still in the throes of all the thrashing about "we could have had Lincecum over Stubbs"

2005 Jay Bruce. We could have had Jacob Ellsbury? Did we win this one?
2004 Homer Bailey. We could have had Wade Townsend or Philip Hughes. Another maybe we won but then agin maybe we didn't
2003 Ryan Wagner. We could have had Chad Billingsley.
2002 Chris Gruler. We could have had Prince Fielder or Scott Kazmir
2001 Jeremy Sowers who we didn't even sign. We could have had Bobby Crosby
2000 David Espinosa We could have had Adam Wainwright
1999 Ty Howington We could have had Jason Jennings
1998 Austin Kearns but we could have had Brad Lidge and still had Adam Dunn 2nd rd
1997 Brandon Larson We could have had Lance Berkman
1996 John Oliver We could have had Jimmy Rollins

The same kind of futile exercise can be done for every team in baseball every year. And every year there are plenty of fans who make the right pick and cuss their team's inability to see the future. Some years like the Sowers pick, are just inexcusable punts but most of the time its a crapshoot. For all the Lincecum fever and angst there were lots of people who thought he was an arm blowout waiting to happen, for others it was his size. After Howington and Gruler, and the string of years with pitchers blowing out like Gardner, Pauly and Basham, I think the Reds were shy of pitchers with mechanical issues. There is also the fact that there were plenty of "sure thing" picks that fans and scouts wanted that didn't work out - just look at how many picks before the Reds picked that haven't panned out. The idea that a draft was unsuccessful before a player either hangs it up or makes his mark in the Show is premature. The calls about Stubbs, and Mesaraco, won't be proven "bad" until either one quits or makes it. The fact there were better or faster-to-the-bigs players taken after them is an indictment you can make for almost every team, almost every year. Take drafts as a body of work from round one to the end. The Reds seem to have drafted strongly for the last 3 or 4 years put that way. It shows in the depth. Whether all those guys make it is still to be seen.

Sorry, but this is a silly premise. There is ALWAYS someone (with the exception of Bruce in 2005) that COULD have been picked over who the Reds actually selected. The problem with the Stubbs pick was the Reds didn't need him in the system. What they needed was SP and what they really needed was close to major league ready SP. In 2002, Kazmir was the OBVIOUS choice. I don't remember too many people having a problem with the Wagner pick. Kid had talent and a Tomko head. no way to really know that. 2001 was a punt pick as Sowers was never going to sign and the Reds knew it. They could have picked any of the next 20 guys taken and gotten more value.

And on and on and on. It isn't so much as who the Reds should have taken as it is who thay did take, and the thought process behind the pick.

Sad thing is, the regime keeps changing, but the same dumb things keep happening. What I find hysterical is the 2 best 1st rd picks the Reds have had since 1998 came under DanO's watch.

*BaseClogger*
05-19-2008, 09:33 AM
wasn't Porcello clearly a Top 10 talent, but wanted a big signing bonus? If he was a better talent than Mesoraco, but wasn't drafted because of the money issue, I think we have a reason to complain...

RedlegJake
05-19-2008, 10:17 AM
Sorry, but this is a silly premise. There is ALWAYS someone (with the exception of Bruce in 2005) that COULD have been picked over who the Reds actually selected. The problem with the Stubbs pick was the Reds didn't need him in the system. What they needed was SP and what they really needed was close to major league ready SP. In 2002, Kazmir was the OBVIOUS choice. I don't remember too many people having a problem with the Wagner pick. Kid had talent and a Tomko head. no way to really know that. 2001 was a punt pick as Sowers was never going to sign and the Reds knew it. They could have picked any of the next 20 guys taken and gotten more value.

And on and on and on. It isn't so much as who the Reds should have taken as it is who thay did take, and the thought process behind the pick.

Sad thing is, the regime keeps changing, but the same dumb things keep happening. What I find hysterical is the 2 best 1st rd picks the Reds have had since 1998 came under DanO's watch.

I disagree that Kazmir was OBVIOUS. Gruler actually was much more projectable. Your point that there is ALWAYS someone else is exactly my point. All the crying and hand wringing is pointless. Your point about Wagner is exactly right - there is no way of knowing - about ANY of them. As for the regime doing dumb things I disagree, that's all. The last two drafts may not have been great to this point per the #1 pick but they were good strong drafts top to bottom.

podgejeff_
05-19-2008, 10:27 AM
The problem with the Stubbs pick was the Reds didn't need him in the system. What they needed was SP and what they really needed was close to major league ready SP.



And on and on and on. It isn't so much as who the Reds should have taken as it is who thay did take, and the thought process behind the pick.



1. We DEFINITELY need a CF with excellent defense and a serviceable bat in the system. Unless you're a fan of Patterson. The needs of the season of the draft aren't necessarily going to be the same needs two or three years later, when that talent is ready for the primetime. Which leads to point number 2...

2. You don't draft based on need, you draft the best pick available.

M2
05-19-2008, 10:46 AM
sorry. you are the one who is off base here.

as i said there are people who are picking on this kid due to the fact that he is off to a slow start to his big league career. they point out someone who we could have drafted instead. wow, that is hard. considering guys like Pujols and Piazza were 40th round draft picks then every GM in baseball is a dolt.
these are the same guys who focus on the negative aspects of the Reds all the time. if we were 40-1 they would find fault. what exactly is the point?

Really? I'm off base? Did I suggest that you're somehow not a true "fan" because of your take on Mesoraco? Actually you didn't post a take on Mesoraco. You posted a take on people who have a take on Mesoraco, and that's garbage.

And now you've heaped more garbage onto the pile with this post. Apparently wishing that the team's top pick in the last draft show some quality on the field makes you congenitally negative.

M2
05-19-2008, 10:57 AM
wasn't Porcello clearly a Top 10 talent, but wanted a big signing bonus? If he was a better talent than Mesoraco, but wasn't drafted because of the money issue, I think we have a reason to complain...

I agree in that Porcello was clearly the best talent on the board when the Reds picked. All 30 teams would have agreed with that. Whether the Reds should have been scared off by the money he was asking is impossible to answer. My take was and is that with a supposed contract whiz in the GM job, the Reds should have rolled the dice on the tough sign with the big talent.

Had they landed Porcello and Frazier with their first two picks, the Reds would be considered the current landslide winners of the 2007 draft.

Though it should be noted that the point of bringing up what the alternate picks could have been is to learn from the experience. In 2006 the Reds passed up a top rated prospect who dropped in Lincecum and the next year they did the same thing with Porcello. So when do they learn that lesson?

IslandRed
05-19-2008, 11:12 AM
Though it should be noted that the point of bringing up what the alternate picks could have been is to learn from the experience. In 2006 the Reds passed up a top rated prospect who dropped in Lincecum and the next year they did the same thing with Porcello. So when do they learn that lesson?

I'm not sure the same lesson applies to both. Lincecum fell, but not very far, and he wasn't asking for outrageous money. He signed for about what Stubbs did. In other words, it was a selection based on merit (as the Reds saw it), probably because they'd red-flagged Lincecum's mechanics, not because they didn't think they could afford him. To the extent time proves them more right or more wrong than it appears at the moment, that's a lesson in player evaluation.

With Porcello, they didn't want to write a check that large, pure and simple. The lesson that needs to be learned there is the one BP researched earlier this year on whether it made sense to pay over slot for talent that's dropping due to signability concerns -- and concluded that it generally did.

RedlegJake
05-19-2008, 11:14 AM
I agree in that Porcello was clearly the best talent on the board when the Reds picked. All 30 teams would have agreed with that. Whether the Reds should have been scared off by the money he was asking is impossible to answer. My take was and is that with a supposed contract whiz in the GM job, the Reds should have rolled the dice on the tough sign with the big talent.

Had they landed Porcello and Frazier with their first two picks, the Reds would be considered the current landslide winners of the 2007 draft.

Though it should be noted that the point of bringing up what the alternate picks could have been is to learn from the experience. In 2006 the Reds passed up a top rated prospect who dropped in Lincecum and the next year they did the same thing with Porcello. So when do they learn that lesson?

Signability is a big beef with me. More than once the Reds have dodged great talents clearly better because of that. If you want to win then you don't pass clearly better players because of that - you figure out how to make it work. If two players are close then I can see leaning toward the easier to sign. My complaint with Mes isn't with him so much as the obvious drafting for a need - they went for a catcher because they were weak in the system. Drafting for a need is dumb in baseball where the player will be years away. As for Lincecum I still think the Reds shied away from him because of size and mechanics. They couldn't afford the fallout from another Howington/Gruler. Outside Bailey they haven't gone for a pitcher since (in the first round) and there have been some good ones available.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-19-2008, 11:23 AM
Signability is a big beef with me. More than once the Reds have dodged great talents clearly better because of that. If you want to win then you don't pass clearly better players because of that - you figure out how to make it work. If two players are close then I can see leaning toward the easier to sign. My complaint with Mes isn't with him so much as the obvious drafting for a need - they went for a catcher because they were weak in the system. Drafting for a need is dumb in baseball where the player will be years away. As for Lincecum I still think the Reds shied away from him because of size and mechanics. They couldn't afford the fallout from another Howington/Gruler. Outside Bailey they haven't gone for a pitcher since (in the first round) and there have been some good ones available.

Agree. If catcher is weak in your system and there is a college catcher available that is top 10 talent, I have no problem drafting for need. A HS kid may take 5-7 years to make it, if he does indeed make it and in that time you can fill the catching void through free agency and trades. By the time the kid makes it catching may no longer even be a need.

Mesoraco was not an exciting pick. I wish him luck, but I think signability was AGAIN a factor with yet another Reds pick.

lollipopcurve
05-19-2008, 11:33 AM
In 2006 the Reds passed up a top rated prospect who dropped in Lincecum and the next year they did the same thing with Porcello. So when do they learn that lesson?

I think the Kazmir/Gruler situation, and the Jered Weaver/Bailey situation are better comps for Porcello in that the Reds avoided guys with high price tags/roster demands. The only year they were willing to dole out major league roster spots, they gave them to guys who turned out not to merit them. In other words, they've consistently botched when to spring for talent and when not to spring for talent at the top of the draft. While I don't get worked up over any individual misses -- they happen -- I would be very pleased if as an organization they put everybody into play -- from the big bonus babies to the HS catchers -- instead of disqualifying some very talented kids based on considerations beyond what they project those players to do on the field.

This year, we're talking about guys like Hosmer and Alvarez, reportedly. Buckley has said the scouting department hasn't been given restrictions. I think that's a stock soundbyte any SD would deliver. I do think Hosmer will slide, and I think it's within the realm of possibility that Alvarez will, too, though quite unlikely.

RedlegJake
05-19-2008, 11:36 AM
I'd do handstands if the Reds got either Alvarez or Hosmer. Not just for the player but it would show they were finally serious about drafting the best available.

M2
05-19-2008, 11:56 AM
I'm not sure the same lesson applies to both. Lincecum fell, but not very far, and he wasn't asking for outrageous money. He signed for about what Stubbs did. In other words, it was a selection based on merit (as the Reds saw it), probably because they'd red-flagged Lincecum's mechanics, not because they didn't think they could afford him. To the extent time proves them more right or more wrong than it appears at the moment, that's a lesson in player evaluation.

With Porcello, they didn't want to write a check that large, pure and simple. The lesson that needs to be learned there is the one BP researched earlier this year on whether it made sense to pay over slot for talent that's dropping due to signability concerns -- and concluded that it generally did.


I think the Kazmir/Gruler situation, and the Jered Weaver/Bailey situation are better comps for Porcello in that the Reds avoided guys with high price tags/roster demands. The only year they were willing to dole out major league roster spots, they gave them to guys who turned out not to merit them. In other words, they've consistently botched when to spring for talent and when not to spring for talent at the top of the draft. While I don't get worked up over any individual misses -- they happen -- I would be very pleased if as an organization they put everybody into play -- from the big bonus babies to the HS catchers -- instead of disqualifying some very talented kids based on considerations beyond what they project those players to do on the field.

This year, we're talking about guys like Hosmer and Alvarez, reportedly. Buckley has said the scouting department hasn't been given restrictions. I think that's a stock soundbyte any SD would deliver. I do think Hosmer will slide, and I think it's within the realm of possibility that Alvarez will, too, though quite unlikely.

Good posts and you're both absolutely right.

Clearly Lincecum and Porcello aren't exact parallels, but I'd argue in both cases there was a player on the board the Reds probably thought might get taken higher and in both cases the Reds didn't react, selecting the guy they were going to take anyway. The lesson I'd like to see the team learn is no matter what the circumstances, seize the opportunity if a top three prospect falls to you.

TRF
05-19-2008, 12:17 PM
1. We DEFINITELY need a CF with excellent defense and a serviceable bat in the system. Unless you're a fan of Patterson. The needs of the season of the draft aren't necessarily going to be the same needs two or three years later, when that talent is ready for the primetime. Which leads to point number 2...

2. You don't draft based on need, you draft the best pick available.

At the time of the pick, the Reds were awash in OF talent at the major league level. Stubbs bat is far from serviceable at this point in his career. May stats: .148BA .212OBP .262SLG .474OPS. That ain't serviceable
Stubbs was not the best player available, a pitcher was. It just so happens that it also filled a need. Swing and a miss on the Stubbs pick. Sorry, but at this point it just cannot be defended.

TRF
05-19-2008, 12:18 PM
I disagree that Kazmir was OBVIOUS. Gruler actually was much more projectable. Your point that there is ALWAYS someone else is exactly my point. All the crying and hand wringing is pointless. Your point about Wagner is exactly right - there is no way of knowing - about ANY of them. As for the regime doing dumb things I disagree, that's all. The last two drafts may not have been great to this point per the #1 pick but they were good strong drafts top to bottom.

I disagree on the premise that Gruler was more projectable. Only the Reds scouts thought so. Nearly every publication had Kazmir as the top HS pitcher, AND he is LH. It was a money thing plain and simple.

dougdirt
05-19-2008, 12:33 PM
I haven't seen him play, but have tracked his small sample size stats. I saw all the info about his abilities when he was drafted, but i don't trust scouts all the time. They tend to have a pack mentality.

Has anybody seen him play in person or tv? Would like to hear what folks think after seeing him in person.

Does he look like a catcher? Or is he just an athelete behind home plate?
What are his natural abilities (the reason he got drafted)? Does he have a quick bat? Good foot work? A strong arm?

Mesoraco has a laser arm behind the plate. He has good footwork, but it seems to me to be slow at the time. I think its because he is trying to get himself in the perfect throwing position right now though as he jumps up to make the throw. Even with that keeping his pop time down, he is still likely producing a strong pop time. His bat is quick and in the long run I am not concerned with his bat. He just needs more time thats all.

dougdirt
05-19-2008, 12:47 PM
At the time of the pick, the Reds were awash in OF talent at the major league level. Stubbs bat is far from serviceable at this point in his career. May stats: .148BA .212OBP .262SLG .474OPS. That ain't serviceable
Stubbs was not the best player available, a pitcher was. It just so happens that it also filled a need. Swing and a miss on the Stubbs pick. Sorry, but at this point it just cannot be defended.

Stubbs May has been fine except he has been incredibly unlucky. He has a strong line drive rate in May (19%) and a very low BABIP of .220. Normalize that to just .310 (which is what his line drive rate would suggest) and his May looks a bit different. Strikeout rate is still too high this month, but his walk rate is fine, his line drive rate is fine.... keep doing what he is doing and his numbers will normalize.

princeton
05-19-2008, 12:52 PM
I think that the importance of making educated judgements on Mesoraco is two-fold:

1. the Reds have a top pick this year, and there may be a catcher of talent appropriate to the pick. usually you don't pick a catcher that high if you've got one in your system already. but, do you have one in your system? my answer is probably not

2. there's a new GM, and he likely has the power to replace the SD. he needs to make that decision, and Stubbs/Mesoraco (and others that were available) are part of that evaluation.

M2
05-19-2008, 01:27 PM
I think that the importance of making educated judgements on Mesoraco is two-fold:

1. the Reds have a top pick this year, and there may be a catcher of talent appropriate to the pick. usually you don't pick a catcher that high if you've got one in your system already. but, do you have one in your system? my answer is probably not

2. there's a new GM, and he likely has the power to replace the SD. he needs to make that decision, and Stubbs/Mesoraco (and others that were available) are part of that evaluation.

Very good points. I'll add one more:

3. On the off chance the team's recent hot streak is a sign of things to come, the major league club may be looking to add major league talent this summer. If so, Mesoraco, still wearing the laurels of being a #15 overall pick, might be somebody the Reds want to trade for that major league talent if the organization deems his future to be a bit too vague for its liking. It costs top prospects to get quality major leaguers, so is Mesoraco one you keep or one you trade?

BuckeyeRedleg
05-19-2008, 01:33 PM
Throw him in with Griffey (and pay the rest of Griffey's salary in '08) to Seattle for Clement.

princeton
05-19-2008, 01:42 PM
right away, the Reds need to look hard at the process by which the number one pick has been determined over the past couple of years.

also, this focus on big pitchers is pretty cool, and may pay big dividends in the future. but it's also liable to get a GM fired quickly. Bigger pitchers often take a lot longer to find their mechanics.

I figure that Jocketty is our last capable GM for a while because who else would want this job? So you need to feed him some stuff that will ripen at a quicker rate.

I don't mind drafting size after the first few rounds, but let's be more open early.

TRF
05-19-2008, 02:45 PM
Stubbs May has been fine except he has been incredibly unlucky. He has a strong line drive rate in May (19%) and a very low BABIP of .220. Normalize that to just .310 (which is what his line drive rate would suggest) and his May looks a bit different. Strikeout rate is still too high this month, but his walk rate is fine, his line drive rate is fine.... keep doing what he is doing and his numbers will normalize.

A buck forty eight ain't JUST bad luck. I'll buy that luck is part of it, if you'll buy pitchers have made an adjustment and he hasn't yet.

dougdirt
05-19-2008, 02:58 PM
A buck forty eight ain't JUST bad luck. I'll buy that luck is part of it, if you'll buy pitchers have made an adjustment and he hasn't yet.

He is hitting .159 in May. Part of it is bad luck, part of it is the strikeout rate. Still, if his BABIP were close to normal his OPS would likely be at least 150 or so points higher than it is for the month.

TRF
05-19-2008, 03:04 PM
He is hitting .159 in May. Part of it is bad luck, part of it is the strikeout rate. Still, if his BABIP were close to normal his OPS would likely be at least 150 or so points higher than it is for the month.

I was using the numbers from minorleaguesplits.com. perhaps they aren't current.

Dammit, everytime I think I'm done posting about Stubbs, I get pulled back in.

podgejeff_
05-19-2008, 03:42 PM
At the time of the pick, the Reds were awash in OF talent at the major league level. Stubbs bat is far from serviceable at this point in his career. May stats: .148BA .212OBP .262SLG .474OPS. That ain't serviceable
Stubbs was not the best player available, a pitcher was. It just so happens that it also filled a need. Swing and a miss on the Stubbs pick. Sorry, but at this point it just cannot be defended.


The first point I was making is that half of the draft (if not moreso) is based on potential, that was Stubbs. Gold Glove quality glove, bat that could be feared if it came along. And yes, at the time of the pick we were awash in OF talent. Look where we are now. Draft talent, not need.

And yes, in hindsight Lincecum looks to be the better player. At the time of the draft, Stubbs was the college pick that should have been close to contributing at the major league level. Lincecum, while talented, had mechanics that looked dangerous. The pick becomes obvious when it's made by an organization burned many times by pitcher injuries. Don't get me wrong, at this point I'd rather have Lincecum as well. Doesn't mean that the justification behind the Stubbs pick wasn't somewhat understandable.

M2
05-19-2008, 03:59 PM
And yes, in hindsight Lincecum looks to be the better player. At the time of the draft, Stubbs was the college pick that should have been close to contributing at the major league level. Lincecum, while talented, had mechanics that looked dangerous. The pick becomes obvious when it's made by an organization burned many times by pitcher injuries. Don't get me wrong, at this point I'd rather have Lincecum as well. Doesn't mean that the justification behind the Stubbs pick wasn't somewhat understandable.

You're relatively new around here, but at the time of the 2006 draft there was a sizable contingent on this board who were aghast that the Reds passed on Lincecum for Stubbs. Stubbs' offensive issues were known and Lincecum oozed stuff. Higher ceiling, closer to the majors, more complete package? A large number of us would have answered Lincecum in June 2006.

cincyinco
05-19-2008, 04:25 PM
Absolutely lincecum was closer to the majors. It want even really close.

Kc61
05-19-2008, 04:40 PM
You have to look at drafting position and strength of draft. If the Reds have a mid-first round pick, like Mesoraco was, I give the team flexibility to gamble a little. At the fifteenth pick, probably there's some potential flaw in all the prospects, so you have to let the team make its best judgment.

When the team has a top 10 pick I feel differently. The annoying thing about the Gruler pick was that it was number 3. The highest pick the Reds have had in many years. That's not a pick to gamble with, it's a pick to use on quality.

I believe Bailey and Bruce were both number 7 or 8 selections. I think they were good ones. I don't recall what number Stubbs was, but it was pretty high. I'm disappointed in his bat but, on the other hand, we've all seen how tough it is to find a top defender in centerfield who is the complete package.

Which leads us to 2008. Seventh pick. The Reds need to go for top quality. I don't care about position one bit.

dougdirt
05-19-2008, 04:45 PM
Bruce was #12 overall. Stubbs was #8.

lollipopcurve
05-19-2008, 04:45 PM
I believe Bailey and Bruce were both number 7 or 8 selections.

Bailey #7, Bruce #12.

Highlifeman21
05-19-2008, 07:29 PM
Mesoraco will get a lot more leniency than Stubbs ever did b/c of his age.

In a couple of years, that's when the fangs come out.

As he should.

Mesoraco didn't play 3 years of Big XII ball for Texas, and then stink up the joint to date in his minor league career.

Let's see how Mesoraco does after 3 years of minor league ball, then the fangs can come out, if warranted.

Stubbs has warranted fangs.

Highlifeman21
05-19-2008, 07:36 PM
2007 Devin Mesoraco
2006 Drew Stubbs
2005 Jay Bruce.
2004 Homer Bailey.
2003 Ryan Wagner.
2002 Chris Gruler.
2001 Jeremy Sowers (DNS)
2000 David Espinosa
1999 Ty Howington
1998 Austin Kearns
1997 Brandon Larson


When you're batting 3 for 11 since 1997 with 1st Round Draft Picks, it's no wonder the current state of the Reds.

Yikes.

I really hope Jocketty rights the 1st Round Draft pick ship this year.

Highlifeman21
05-19-2008, 07:47 PM
1. We DEFINITELY need a CF with excellent defense and a serviceable bat in the system. Unless you're a fan of Patterson. The needs of the season of the draft aren't necessarily going to be the same needs two or three years later, when that talent is ready for the primetime. Which leads to point number 2...

2. You don't draft based on need, you draft the best pick available.


This is a concept foreign to the Reds in recent drafts.

2006, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000.

MUCH better guys left on the board when the Reds wasted picks in those respective years.

And Gruler "projecting higher" than Kazmir makes me laugh out loud to this day. People that actually believe that are in deep denial.

RedlegJake
05-19-2008, 07:54 PM
And Gruler "projecting higher" than Kazmir makes me laugh out loud to this day. People that actually believe that are in deep denial.

I don't know about that. Kazmir was rated higher but not by that much. Gruler was definitely #2 but had a "major league" body. Kazmir was small and the Reds scouting had a bias against smallish pitchers for years. Hopefully our own Cueto and Volquez, and the success of Lincecum has convinced them that was wrong. That's just my opinion, of course, not a sign of deep denial - or worthy, I might add of that sort of remark.

Highlifeman21
05-19-2008, 08:03 PM
I don't know about that. Kazmir was rated higher but not by that much. Gruler was definitely #2 but had a "major league" body. Kazmir was small and the Reds scouting had a bias against smallish pitchers for years. Hopefully our own Cueto and Volquez, and the success of Lincecum has convinced them that was wrong. That's just my opinion, of course, not a sign of deep denial - or worthy, I might add of that sort of remark.

Kazmir being left-handed, and being the consensus best arm out there should have put him head and shoulders above Gruler, regardless of Gruler having the precursor to the Jeff Conine "young body", which is a "major league body".

Gruler broke down quickly. So much for the "major league body" theory.

Highlifeman21
05-19-2008, 09:10 PM
Gruler over Kazmir hurt. Deeply.

Stubbs over Lincecum opened old wounds.

I remain pessimistically hopeful (yeah, that's oxymoronic, I know) that we'll get the 2008 1st Round Pick right. Krivsky was 0 for. Let's see what Jocketty can do.

Oxilon
05-19-2008, 09:44 PM
Is this a thread regarding Devin Mesoraco or 'Hindsight is 20/20'? We can complain all we want about how we botched the 2002 and 2006 amateur MLB draft picks, but it's pretty pointless and leads us nowhere.

Should we have drafted Kazmir over Gruler in 2002. Hindsight says yes. But lets consider a few things first. At the time of the draft, Gruler too, was a coveted HS pitching prospect and was easily regarded as a top 5 pick. It's unfortunate that injuries derailed his baseball career, but such is so in life and in the MLB amateur draft.

Let us also remember that we're not the only team to pass up on Kazmir. Eleven teams passed on Kazmir after us, and for the exact same reason; Kazmir was a Boras client who naturally was going to have 'signability issues.' Granted several teams after us managed to land good players helping them right now, but that's neither here or there. Bottomline, Kazmir came with a flag that the Reds and eleven other teams didn't want to risk. Yes, Kazmir was a top pitching prospect coming out of high school, but with a high possiblity of Kazmir either underperforming or blowing his arm out, how would the Reds FO feel if they just blew multi-millions of dollars on a pitcher that wouldn't even sniff the majors?

Regarding Linecum, yes he put up beastly numbers in U Wash, but let's also consider that he's pushing 5'10'' and is barely 180 lbs. Let's also remember that his mechanics are somewhat harsh and not easy going. When you're evaluting prospects, you have to look that risk of injury since these kids are still usually atleast 2 years away from ever contributing to the major league club and are about to start abusing there arms much more so than they ever did in the high school and/or college.

They call hindsight 20/20 for a reason. Yes the Reds could have picked a better player here or there looking back at it. But that's why they call the MLB draft a crapshoot because that's exactly what it is. And don't you think they're teams that are pissed they passed up on Jay Bruce and Homer Bailey? All I gotta say is it flows both ways and no team is perfect.

cincyinco
05-19-2008, 09:48 PM
Gruler over Kazmir hurt. Deeply.

Stubbs over Lincecum opened old wounds.

I remain pessimistically hopeful (yeah, that's oxymoronic, I know) that we'll get the 2008 1st Round Pick right. Krivsky was 0 for. Let's see what Jocketty can do.

:rolleyes:

It never ceases to amaze me.

You're calling Mesoraco a miss after 1 half year in rookie ball? 30ish AB's in Dayton? You've picked a bone on Stubbs forever too. I am not meaning to take a shot at you, but the impression I get is that you might just have a bone to pick, period.

Its way too early to write off Mesoraco OR Stubbs for that matter. I'm not trying to argue with you about the Reds history of bad drafting. That is blatently obvious and staring everyone in the face. I just think its the epitome of being inane writing off a prospect out of HS, after a 1/2 year of rookie ball while playing with noted injuries.

You think we'd have learned lessons with players like Rosales, Bailey, Bruce, etc - every prospect has a different developement curve or path - and you need to view that prospect in a window of more than 1 year. Because as with Rosales, they go up and down from year to year - people on redszone were calling him a better prospect than Homer Bailey at one time. Bailey has flashed dominant stuff, and regressed. Bruce is unstoppable. And we STILL don't know how any of those guys are really going to turn out. As with any prospect, writing them off after struggles in their initial career is foolish.

For as much as Small Sample Size is touted around here, it sure gets junked and thrown to the wayside when we talk about prospects in the minor league forum.

When, oh when are we going to be more prudent in our prospect evaluations here on Redszone? Because all logical, basic prospect evaluation method's fly out the window here at RedsZone when evaluating our own.

Word to the wise, following prospects is a game for those with patience. Not those who want immediete results. Those who dominate and continue to do so from the get go are the exception. Not the rule.

podgejeff_
05-20-2008, 09:10 AM
You're relatively new around here, but at the time of the 2006 draft there was a sizable contingent on this board who were aghast that the Reds passed on Lincecum for Stubbs. Stubbs' offensive issues were known and Lincecum oozed stuff. Higher ceiling, closer to the majors, more complete package? A large number of us would have answered Lincecum in June 2006.

I wasn't aware the Lincecum was considered more of an impact draft, but I can still understand from the Reds POV why they'd take Stubbs. If he met his potential fully (rare in the minors, I know), we'd have a power hitting, gold glove CF. Scouts have to love him for a reason.

Couple that with Lincecum, an impact but one with weird mechanics, and a past history of arm blowouts on our part, and it makes sense.

princeton
05-20-2008, 09:35 AM
I just think its the epitome of being inane writing off a prospect out of HS, after a 1/2 year of rookie ball while playing with noted injuries.

I'm sure that we won't be cutting Stubbs or Mesoraco anytime soon, and it makes little sense to trade either since they don't have value.

but you also have to be sober about their chances, which are low, and plan accordingly. These two players should not make us forego shopping for a catcher or for a center fielder with righthanded power. to ignore those weaknesses in the system because of the presence of Stubbs and Mesoraco would be inane

it would also be inane to not visit the process by which these two players were selected by the Reds scouting department, as well as the process by which Terry Reynolds chose Jay Bruce. As Seinfeld says, "why can't we still have this, but also that?"

lollipopcurve
05-20-2008, 10:25 AM
Simplified some, in my opinion the process should be this:

1. Give the scouting department an extra 5 million a year, give or take, split between domestic and international.

2. Rule out 0 players based on signability.

3. Rule out 0 players based on position or age.

4. Have good scouts.

5. Get multiple looks from multiple people at players who will cost a lot.

6. Let the scouting department run the draft.

Do all that, and there are still no guarantees.

Highlifeman21
05-20-2008, 12:42 PM
:rolleyes:

It never ceases to amaze me.

You're calling Mesoraco a miss after 1 half year in rookie ball? 30ish AB's in Dayton? You've picked a bone on Stubbs forever too. I am not meaning to take a shot at you, but the impression I get is that you might just have a bone to pick, period.

Its way too early to write off Mesoraco OR Stubbs for that matter. I'm not trying to argue with you about the Reds history of bad drafting. That is blatently obvious and staring everyone in the face. I just think its the epitome of being inane writing off a prospect out of HS, after a 1/2 year of rookie ball while playing with noted injuries.

You think we'd have learned lessons with players like Rosales, Bailey, Bruce, etc - every prospect has a different developement curve or path - and you need to view that prospect in a window of more than 1 year. Because as with Rosales, they go up and down from year to year - people on redszone were calling him a better prospect than Homer Bailey at one time. Bailey has flashed dominant stuff, and regressed. Bruce is unstoppable. And we STILL don't know how any of those guys are really going to turn out. As with any prospect, writing them off after struggles in their initial career is foolish.

For as much as Small Sample Size is touted around here, it sure gets junked and thrown to the wayside when we talk about prospects in the minor league forum.

When, oh when are we going to be more prudent in our prospect evaluations here on Redszone? Because all logical, basic prospect evaluation method's fly out the window here at RedsZone when evaluating our own.

Word to the wise, following prospects is a game for those with patience. Not those who want immediete results. Those who dominate and continue to do so from the get go are the exception. Not the rule.

Krivsky missed badly with Stubbs. Eventually the glass 1/2 full contingent will realize that fact. I've said my piece ad nauseum about why Stubbs is a bust, and the only argument used by the other camp is "wait and see". Wait and see is nice, but the Stubbs selection hurt the Reds as an organization, b/c Stubbs is on a ridiculously slow developmental curve (after playing 3 years in the Big XII @ Texas, mind you) and the Reds needed to take 1. the best available talent on the board at the time (which they didn't), and 2. a guy that can help them before 2011 (at the earliest). So they badly missed the boat, and the organization suffers b/c of the pick.

As for Mesoraco, he was arguably the best available on the board, but Krivsky attempted to draft for need, which is a no no. That's why I consider his selection the 2nd whiff for Krivsky. Mesoraco's injury's also haven't helped his cause in my book, since he's now in the Gary Majewski category of Reds, aka damaged goods. Hopefully Mesoraco gets healthy, turns the corner and will turn around his young career, but to date IMO, he's Krivsky's 2nd, and thankfully last, bust.

I don't have anything against Stubbs or Mesoraco, like I did with Gruler. With Gruler, it was personal. We missed badly with Gruler, and I hated Gruler b/c of it. I remember reading about his injuries in the Enquirer, and a morbid smile formed on my lips. I was happy, on some level. But as for Stubbs and Mesoraco, I give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they'll eventually positively contribute as Reds, but I'm not going to hold my breath. I'm going to write them off as misses by Krivsky, and look ahead hoping Jocketty will draft better than Krivsky. I can't imagine how Jocketty could do any worse...

princeton
05-20-2008, 12:52 PM
Krivsky missed badly with Stubbs. Eventually the glass 1/2 full contingent will realize that fact....

I don't think that the glass 1/2 full contingent will acknowledge it. But it's important to understand these things early.

If Krivsky's SD drafts Lincecum, then Krivsky might still have a job. Now WayneK's gone, but the guy that he hired still works here.

edabbs44
05-20-2008, 01:02 PM
He is hitting .159 in May. Part of it is bad luck, part of it is the strikeout rate. Still, if his BABIP were close to normal his OPS would likely be at least 150 or so points higher than it is for the month.

Hit BABIP was .470 in April. In May, it has been .244. Maybe this is more normalization than bad luck.

edabbs44
05-20-2008, 01:03 PM
You're relatively new around here, but at the time of the 2006 draft there was a sizable contingent on this board who were aghast that the Reds passed on Lincecum for Stubbs. Stubbs' offensive issues were known and Lincecum oozed stuff. Higher ceiling, closer to the majors, more complete package? A large number of us would have answered Lincecum in June 2006.

I was on the Scherzer bandwagon.

edabbs44
05-20-2008, 01:05 PM
Is this a thread regarding Devin Mesoraco or 'Hindsight is 20/20'? We can complain all we want about how we botched the 2002 and 2006 amateur MLB draft picks, but it's pretty pointless and leads us nowhere.

Should we have drafted Kazmir over Gruler in 2002. Hindsight says yes. But lets consider a few things first. At the time of the draft, Gruler too, was a coveted HS pitching prospect and was easily regarded as a top 5 pick. It's unfortunate that injuries derailed his baseball career, but such is so in life and in the MLB amateur draft.

Let us also remember that we're not the only team to pass up on Kazmir. Eleven teams passed on Kazmir after us, and for the exact same reason; Kazmir was a Boras client who naturally was going to have 'signability issues.' Granted several teams after us managed to land good players helping them right now, but that's neither here or there. Bottomline, Kazmir came with a flag that the Reds and eleven other teams didn't want to risk. Yes, Kazmir was a top pitching prospect coming out of high school, but with a high possiblity of Kazmir either underperforming or blowing his arm out, how would the Reds FO feel if they just blew multi-millions of dollars on a pitcher that wouldn't even sniff the majors?

Regarding Linecum, yes he put up beastly numbers in U Wash, but let's also consider that he's pushing 5'10'' and is barely 180 lbs. Let's also remember that his mechanics are somewhat harsh and not easy going. When you're evaluting prospects, you have to look that risk of injury since these kids are still usually atleast 2 years away from ever contributing to the major league club and are about to start abusing there arms much more so than they ever did in the high school and/or college.

They call hindsight 20/20 for a reason. Yes the Reds could have picked a better player here or there looking back at it. But that's why they call the MLB draft a crapshoot because that's exactly what it is. And don't you think they're teams that are pissed they passed up on Jay Bruce and Homer Bailey? All I gotta say is it flows both ways and no team is perfect.

Hindsight is the most accurate way to truly grade a GM's performance, both on the big team or in the draft. I'd rather have a draft look awful at the time and be great in hindsight than vice versa.

Falls City Beer
05-20-2008, 01:13 PM
So far he's all caution flags.

Why must you hate?

What's Pennsylvania ever done to you?

dougdirt
05-20-2008, 01:17 PM
Here is my issue....

Why do some people use the fact that it wasn't the guy they wanted to be so negative on the guy we actually took?

My quote from draft day 2006: I will take anyone but Drew Stubbs.

Yet I get slammed on here for supporting Drew Stubbs. Why? I don't have a clue. I see where he can put himself and help the Reds. Others seem to hate on him because he isn't in the majors like others are that were drafted before/after him. Now that isn't everyone, but its the feeling I get from a whole lot of people on him.

edabbs44
05-20-2008, 01:28 PM
Here is my issue....

Why do some people use the fact that it wasn't the guy they wanted to be so negative on the guy we actually took?

My quote from draft day 2006: I will take anyone but Drew Stubbs.

Yet I get slammed on here for supporting Drew Stubbs. Why? I don't have a clue. I see where he can put himself and help the Reds. Others seem to hate on him because he isn't in the majors like others are that were drafted before/after him. Now that isn't everyone, but its the feeling I get from a whole lot of people on him.

It's not because it wasn;t the guy they wanted. It has to do with current performance in comparison to other comparable picks.

I wanted Scherzer. I definitely didn't want Stubbs at the time, but I thought they could have done worse.

Now I dislike the pick even more. Not because it wasn't Scherzer, but because he hasn't worked out yet and others that they passed up could be helping the team right now.

What I don't agree with is looking at the rest of the draft and saying that they missed out on all of the guys who have "worked out" to this point. It is fair, however, to look at guys who were projected as top 10-15 talents and were passed up. Three obvious ones are Joba, Lincecum and Scherzer.

OnBaseMachine
05-20-2008, 01:34 PM
I was a huge fan on Tim Lincecum and I was quite shocked when the Reds passed on him for Stubbs (who was the last guy I wanted). Though it still angers me to this day that the Reds passed on Lincecum in favor of Stubbs, it doesn't prevent me from still rooting for Stubbs and hoping he pans out.

gonelong
05-20-2008, 01:39 PM
Yet I get slammed on here for supporting Drew Stubbs. Why?

It's not about supporting or not supporting Drew Stubbs.

I am interested in the evaluation of Drew Stubbs as an organizational draft pick and as a current asset of the organization.

I think most have been pretty fair in evaluating the selection and the player.

I'd be happy as heck for the peanut gallery to be wrong in their evaluation as the Reds could use a good glove, speed, and a decent bat out in CF.

GL

BuckeyeRedleg
05-20-2008, 01:43 PM
What I don't agree with is looking at the rest of the draft and saying that they missed out on all of the guys who have "worked out" to this point. It is fair, however, to look at guys who were projected as top 10-15 talents and were passed up. Three obvious ones are Joba, Lincecum and Scherzer.

Many teams passed on Chamberlain as he was a sandwich pick.

edabbs44
05-20-2008, 02:08 PM
Many teams passed on Chamberlain as he was a sandwich pick.

Doesn't make me feel any better.

lollipopcurve
05-20-2008, 02:09 PM
Meanwhile, Mesoraco homered last night. Good to see.

Falls City Beer
05-20-2008, 02:11 PM
Meanwhile, Mesoraco homered last night. Good to see.

Get him a ticket to Cincy!

M2
05-20-2008, 02:36 PM
Why must you hate?

What's Pennsylvania ever done to you?

Gave birth to me ... that's got to count for an unforgivable sin.

M2
05-20-2008, 02:57 PM
Here is my issue....

Why do some people use the fact that it wasn't the guy they wanted to be so negative on the guy we actually took?

My quote from draft day 2006: I will take anyone but Drew Stubbs.

Yet I get slammed on here for supporting Drew Stubbs. Why? I don't have a clue. I see where he can put himself and help the Reds. Others seem to hate on him because he isn't in the majors like others are that were drafted before/after him. Now that isn't everyone, but its the feeling I get from a whole lot of people on him.

Just my take (since you asked), but you often act as if Stubbs isn't having the problems he's having and you sometimes cherrypick which parts of his season should count (it's not just with Stubbs, but he's the player you mentioned). It creates an artificially rosy picture when he's really never been on the track the Reds need him to be on.

What I get from most of the Stubbs criticism is he's way too flawed a vessel to justify the #8 overall pick the Reds spent on him. His problems are too big and his upside isn't nearly as high as any of us would have hoped (e.g. I think it's safe to say Stubbs is never going to hit for big time power). That doesn't mean he can't eventually be an asset to the team, but the Reds clearly mis-evaluated him heading into the draft.

Mesoraco falls into the same "could have seen this coming" problem set. His game is less defined than Stubbs', which leaves more room for upside, but about the best anyone can say about his performance on the field to date is that hopefully what he's been doing will stop and the talent that got him drafted in round 1 will emerge.

On the flip side, note the general tone of glee when the team gets a pick right - Jay Bruce, Todd Frazier. It's a reminder that baseball is a results-oriented business. People like hitters that hit.

dougdirt
05-20-2008, 04:05 PM
Just my take (since you asked), but you often act as if Stubbs isn't having the problems he's having and you sometimes cherrypick which parts of his season should count (it's not just with Stubbs, but he's the player you mentioned). It creates an artificially rosy picture when he's really never been on the track the Reds need him to be on.

What I get from most of the Stubbs criticism is he's way too flawed a vessel to justify the #8 overall pick the Reds spent on him. His problems are too big and his upside isn't nearly as high as any of us would have hoped (e.g. I think it's safe to say Stubbs is never going to hit for big time power). That doesn't mean he can't eventually be an asset to the team, but the Reds clearly mis-evaluated him heading into the draft.

Mesoraco falls into the same "could have seen this coming" problem set. His game is less defined than Stubbs', which leaves more room for upside, but about the best anyone can say about his performance on the field to date is that hopefully what he's been doing will stop and the talent that got him drafted in round 1 will emerge.

On the flip side, note the general tone of glee when the team gets a pick right - Jay Bruce, Todd Frazier. It's a reminder that baseball is a results-oriented business. People like hitters that hit.

I see where you are coming from (I also was not a fan so to speak of the previous two draft picks we took first), but I think some are overly hard on Stubbs and will be on Mesoraco because of the fact that they weren't Lincecum/Chamberlain/Porcello and we could have had them. I do wonder though, what if we had taken Frazier #15 overall and taken Mesoraco in his place..... how would some react to Mesoraco then? I bet it would be quite a bit different.

As for people like hitters who hit... surely. They also like guys who can glove it.

TRF
05-20-2008, 05:30 PM
Here is my issue....

Why do some people use the fact that it wasn't the guy they wanted to be so negative on the guy we actually took?

My quote from draft day 2006: I will take anyone but Drew Stubbs.

Yet I get slammed on here for supporting Drew Stubbs. Why? I don't have a clue. I see where he can put himself and help the Reds. Others seem to hate on him because he isn't in the majors like others are that were drafted before/after him. Now that isn't everyone, but its the feeling I get from a whole lot of people on him.


Just my take (since you asked), but you often act as if Stubbs isn't having the problems he's having and you sometimes cherrypick which parts of his season should count (it's not just with Stubbs, but he's the player you mentioned). It creates an artificially rosy picture when he's really never been on the track the Reds need him to be on.

What I get from most of the Stubbs criticism is he's way too flawed a vessel to justify the #8 overall pick the Reds spent on him. His problems are too big and his upside isn't nearly as high as any of us would have hoped (e.g. I think it's safe to say Stubbs is never going to hit for big time power). That doesn't mean he can't eventually be an asset to the team, but the Reds clearly mis-evaluated him heading into the draft.

Mesoraco falls into the same "could have seen this coming" problem set. His game is less defined than Stubbs', which leaves more room for upside, but about the best anyone can say about his performance on the field to date is that hopefully what he's been doing will stop and the talent that got him drafted in round 1 will emerge.

On the flip side, note the general tone of glee when the team gets a pick right - Jay Bruce, Todd Frazier. It's a reminder that baseball is a results-oriented business. People like hitters that hit.

Two very good posts, though the first one is a off base with some (myself).

Yeah, I wanted Lincecum because he was the BPA and he filled a need. Win/Win. That doesn't mean I want Stubbs to fail. But his skillset screams 4th OF, and that isn't what the Reds needed from the #8 pick.

What I can't fathom is the excuse making for the guy. He's raw, he's injured, some guys take longer. pheh. If I know a guy might take longer, he better be 18 years old, fresh out of high school and a future top 10 talent. otherwise I am not all that interested. At least not with a top 10 pick.

The question about Stubbs should have been, was he worthy of a top ten pick at the time? The answer is no. It's no now, it was no then.

ochre
05-20-2008, 06:06 PM
laser arm
bad thumbs

I think that someone might be implying that bad thumbs on a pitcher are less of an issue than bad thumbs on a catcher?

M2
05-20-2008, 06:16 PM
I do wonder though, what if we had taken Frazier #15 overall and taken Mesoraco in his place..... how would some react to Mesoraco then? I bet it would be quite a bit different

I think you're 100% right. We'd have joy in Mudville. Frazier has turned out to be an absolute steal. Unfortunately the order they were taken in means that we get to dwell on what could have been if the Reds had taken someone a little more immediately robust to go with Frazier. For instance, Porcello and Frazier would have made for a spectacular haul. We'd all be hopped up on goofballs had the Reds hit on that daily double.

If Mesoraco fulfills his potential and becomes an everyday catcher in the majors, then you likely won't see any buyer's remorse (see the Volquez/Hamilton deal), but it's going to take him a long time to get there even if he does. What I'd like to see from him this season is a sign of life. What neither he nor the Reds nor us need is for him to put up another stinker.

Topcat
05-21-2008, 04:56 AM
Okay first off I did not like the pick or support it. But to bash this kid is nuts. edabbs step up be a gm and tell me day of draft who you pick and also factor in team budget because you dang well know that was a factor in the selection. This revisionary act you seem to use is brutal, don't tell me a year later or on draft day when its obvious some guys are unsignable due to contract demands.

My choice was Lincecum and we did not select him. Simple as that. there were huge questions on his arm or by far by this point he should have been choice number 1. I don't look back and bashing a kid like Stubbs who shows promise is pointless.

Critique rest of the guys chosen , fire away and do not do it a year or 2 later. Do it from position on draft day and come with informed reasons why and yes include sign ability into the equation.

bucksfan2
05-21-2008, 09:29 AM
I think you're 100% right. We'd have joy in Mudville. Frazier has turned out to be an absolute steal. Unfortunately the order they were taken in means that we get to dwell on what could have been if the Reds had taken someone a little more immediately robust to go with Frazier. For instance, Porcello and Frazier would have made for a spectacular haul. We'd all be hopped up on goofballs had the Reds hit on that daily double.

If Mesoraco fulfills his potential and becomes an everyday catcher in the majors, then you likely won't see any buyer's remorse (see the Volquez/Hamilton deal), but it's going to take him a long time to get there even if he does. What I'd like to see from him this season is a sign of life. What neither he nor the Reds nor us need is for him to put up another stinker.

As good of a prospect as Porcello is it is absolutly nuts to give a HS pitcher that kind of money. How many teams passed on Porcello and I wonder if their fans are complaining about not drafting him?

As for the mush hashed Lincecum Stubbs debate what if the reds scouting department didn't like Lincecum's delivery and thought that it was a severe injury risk? Many people feel that the reds scouting department is inept because they didn't draft the player said fan wanted.

I find it discouraging as a Reds fan when I read the minor league section that there is a contingent of fans (not accusing anyone directly) that would rather see Stubbs fail than to succeed just so they can say "I told you so".

M2
05-21-2008, 10:37 AM
As good of a prospect as Porcello is it is absolutly nuts to give a HS pitcher that kind of money. How many teams passed on Porcello and I wonder if their fans are complaining about not drafting him?

27 teams passed on him and 29 teams wish they had him now.


As for the mush hashed Lincecum Stubbs debate what if the reds scouting department didn't like Lincecum's delivery and thought that it was a severe injury risk? Many people feel that the reds scouting department is inept because they didn't draft the player said fan wanted.

No, what people have said is that the Reds scouting department blew the assessment of Lincecum and Stubbs and that it would do well to learn from those mistakes. You seem to think that being able to provide an excuse means you can ignore the lesson - when a pitcher with elite stuff drops to you, be prepared to draft him.


I find it discouraging as a Reds fan when I read the minor league section that there is a contingent of fans (not accusing anyone directly) that would rather see Stubbs fail than to succeed just so they can say "I told you so".

I find it discouraging that you have such an incredibly facile take on the matter. There probably aren't more than a handful of folks engaging in schadenfreude when it comes to Stubbs, most everyone hopes he plays well. Yet many are trying to be realistic about what they hope for.

IslandRed
05-21-2008, 12:28 PM
No, what people have said is that the Reds scouting department blew the assessment of Lincecum and Stubbs and that it would do well to learn from those mistakes.

Just playing devil's advocate here... Let's say the Reds decided to pass on Lincecum because, in their collective professional opinion, he was too high of an injury risk. How high is too high? Can we fill in the blanks:

"Any pitcher has a (blank)% chance of suffering a major injury within the first few years of his drafting just because. Drafting at #8 overall, the highest risk I'm willing to stand is (blank)% no matter how good the guy is. And I think Lincecum had a (blank)% chance of major injury."

I don't know how the Reds would have answered that. I know that just because Lincecum isn't hurt yet, it doesn't necessarily mean they answered the third blank wrong. Probably, our beef is with how they answered the second blank.

M2
05-21-2008, 01:37 PM
Just playing devil's advocate here... Let's say the Reds decided to pass on Lincecum because, in their collective professional opinion, he was too high of an injury risk. How high is too high? Can we fill in the blanks:

"Any pitcher has a (blank)% chance of suffering a major injury within the first few years of his drafting just because. Drafting at #8 overall, the highest risk I'm willing to stand is (blank)% no matter how good the guy is. And I think Lincecum had a (blank)% chance of major injury."

I don't know how the Reds would have answered that. I know that just because Lincecum isn't hurt yet, it doesn't necessarily mean they answered the third blank wrong. Probably, our beef is with how they answered the second blank.

The Reds did one of two things in the 2006 draft (possibly both): talked themselves out of Lincecum or talked themselves into Stubbs to such an extent that Lincecum being on the board didn't register with them. I would argue it was a combination of both

It seems pretty clear the Reds and some others didn't really evaluate Lincecum's mechanics, which are good, just different. Part of it is likely deep-seated. Seems to me the Reds work off an archaic prototype of what a pitcher is supposed to look like and how his delivery is supposed to work. It leads to folks falling in love with Chris Gruler's delivery and eschewing Tim Lincecum's. So I'm sure the Reds thought they were making a well-reasoned decision, but the problem is their evaluation process was so busted that reason never truly entered the picture. Their collective professional opinion rendered a massive blunder because it was engineered to do so.

Also, I think the Reds were/are still reeling from decades of malfeasance in west coast scouting. The damage caused by Larry Barton Jr. should not be underestimated and Barton was still around in 2006 when that pick got made. I'm sure that Barton and his cronies played a central role in whatever the Reds thought of Lincecum and those folks were pretty much uniformly wrong about everything. Meanwhile the Texas scouts had a history of delivering and I imagine they were pushing Stubbs. So if you've got your Pacific scouts sending up cautions on Lincecum and your go-to scouts in Texas are putting out generally glowing reports on Stubbs, I can understand how that would influence your decision. Yet, while I can understand it, it still led to a really poor decision and a franchise like the Reds can't afford misses like that when it's got a top 10 pick.

To me the most dangerous part of the Stubbs pick is the insistence, "But they made a rational decision." No they didn't and the organization is only inviting future calamity if it fails to recognize the irrationality of the decision and recalibrate so that it won't be repeated.

lollipopcurve
05-21-2008, 01:52 PM
When was the last time the Reds took a college starting pitcher #1? Nitkowski?

With the early projections all pointing to Crow, the streak could be broken in a couple weeks.

dougdirt
05-21-2008, 02:02 PM
When was the last time the Reds took a college starting pitcher #1? Nitkowski?

With the early projections all pointing to Crow, the streak could be broken in a couple weeks.

I really hope not. Of course, because I hope not it means it will happen like the last two drafts.

M2
05-21-2008, 02:17 PM
I really hope not. Of course, because I hope not it means it will happen like the last two drafts.

You need to start hoping they won't pick Tim Beckham if he falls to them.

dougdirt
05-21-2008, 02:24 PM
You need to start hoping they won't pick Tim Beckham if he falls to them.

Lol, you are right. Although I am not sure if I like Tim better than Gordon honestly.

11larkin11
05-21-2008, 02:39 PM
So the same reasons people don't want Crow is the same reasons we didn't want Lincecum, and yet now that Lincecum is doing good, we all say we should have taken him, and still don't want Crow.

dougdirt
05-21-2008, 02:42 PM
So the same reasons people don't want Crow is the same reasons we didn't want Lincecum, and yet now that Lincecum is doing good, we all say we should have taken him, and still don't want Crow.

Not exactly. Lincecum had funny/weird mechanics and a very small frame (5'11 and 150 lbs coming out of college). Crow on the other side had bad mechanics. Both concerns, but different concerns.

11larkin11
05-21-2008, 02:45 PM
Not exactly. Lincecum had funny/weird mechanics and a very small frame (5'11 and 150 lbs coming out of college). Crow on the other side had bad mechanics. Both concerns, but different concerns.

Either way, I would like to avoid him. Ideally I would want Matusz to fall to us, but I wouldn't be upset if we take him if the Beckhams, Matusz, Smoak, Alvarez, and Hosmer are off the board.

lollipopcurve
05-21-2008, 02:53 PM
My prefs, at the moment:

1. Posey
2. T. Beckham
3. Alvarez
4. Matusz
5. Crow
6. G. Beckham
After that, up in the air....

bucksfan2
05-21-2008, 03:12 PM
My prefs, at the moment:

1. Posey
2. T. Beckham
3. Alvarez
4. Matusz
5. Crow
6. G. Beckham
After that, up in the air....

Are there any top players that the reds won't draft/sign because of Boras or signability issues?

lollipopcurve
05-21-2008, 03:19 PM
Are there any top players that the reds won't draft/sign because of Boras or signability issues?

If there were, we may never know. Hosmer and Alvarez are reported to be the top-10 players with high contract demands. Buckley has said they have not been directed to avoid anyone, but that's stock predraft talk.

M2
05-21-2008, 03:50 PM
If there were, we may never know. Hosmer and Alvarez are reported to be the top-10 players with high contract demands. Buckley has said they have not been directed to avoid anyone, but that's stock predraft talk.

Hosmer strikes me as being cut from the Travis Lee mold. Smoak and Alonso, maybe even Wallace, strike me as sounder picks if you're looking at a 1B.

OnBaseMachine
05-23-2008, 03:27 PM
When Mesoraco was drafted last year he was immediately compared to Russell Martin. Well, Martin hit .271/.368/.436 - .804 OPS in the hitter friendly Pioneer League at age 20 in 2003. He moved up to Low-A late in the season and hit .286/.343/.439 - .782 OPS in 98 atbats. The way I see it, if Mesoraco can OPS at .750 or above this season then he's right on schedule. He's currently at .243/.317/.432 - .749 OPS.

membengal
06-15-2008, 06:10 PM
So...I don't know about anyone else's expectations, but I am pretty darn thrilled with what he is putting together at Dayton. Just sayin'.

Blue
06-15-2008, 06:27 PM
This thread is funny.

fearofpopvol1
06-15-2008, 06:30 PM
Anyone seen his defense recently? If so, how's he progressing?

His bat does look to be coming along nicely, I must admit.

AmarilloRed
06-15-2008, 07:53 PM
Anyone seen his defense recently? If so, how's he progressing?

His bat does look to be coming along nicely, I must admit.

I can't see him play, but going by the numbers he seems to be progressing nicely. His fielding percentage has increased from .975 to .994 since last year, he has reduced the number of errors from 5 to 1 since last year, and he even seems to be doing better throwing out baserunners. He now has thrown out 4/32, which is an improvement from earlier.

cincyinco
06-15-2008, 08:49 PM
This thread is funny.

Care to illuminate on why? If you're refering to folks calling him a potential bust at the start of this thread, well its become all to common anymore. So much so that for me, its not funny anymore. But that's just my humble opinion.

I just wish folks would exercise a bit more prudence when looking at prospects in general. Not everthing can be summed up just by loking at a scouting report, or by just evaluating stats. And not everthing can be told after just 1 year, or even 2. These guys are human, and there are so many variables in the game let alone life that can have an effect on the path a prospect takes to success or failure that it only makes sense to excersize patience and objectivity when looking at any player and trying to project what they're going to become.

Sorry for the rant, I just get frustrated sometimes reading about stubbs, mes, etc. And being told they are busts when we have a LONG ways to go before we can reach those types of conclusions.

lollipopcurve
06-15-2008, 10:15 PM
I just get frustrated sometimes reading about stubbs, mes, etc. And being told they are busts when we have a LONG ways to go before we can reach those types of conclusions.

Amen to that.

membengal
06-15-2008, 11:01 PM
.294/.353/.431 for a .785 OPS in 102 at-bats so far for Meso.

Applause for what he is getting done. Only Waring at .800 is OPSing higher than Mes at this point.

But, yeah, he's a bust...

Caveat Emperor
06-15-2008, 11:32 PM
Sorry for the rant, I just get frustrated sometimes reading about stubbs, mes, etc. And being told they are busts when we have a LONG ways to go before we can reach those types of conclusions.

Stubbs and Mes are apples and oranges.

Stubbs was a college draft pick and is now 23 years old, displaying all the type of "pop" you associate with a little leaguer.

Meso was taken from a non FLA/TEX/CA high school at age 18, with a lot more time to grow up and fill out.

Bottom line: Meso has a lot of time, Stubbs is running out of time.

KoryMac5
06-15-2008, 11:51 PM
Many of us would be thrilled with success from Stubbs at this point in his career. He does get on base, has great speed, and plays good D. All of these are good attributes to playing centerfield. To me it just seems like he has not made consistent contact since the first month of the season. His average keeps going further south every week. I am not asking for Jay Bruce numbers but I would like to see some consistency in the contact department before I would move him to AA.

Blitz Dorsey
06-16-2008, 12:00 AM
Stubbs and Mes are apples and oranges.

Stubbs was a college draft pick and is now 23 years old, displaying all the type of "pop" you associate with a little leaguer.

Meso was taken from a non FLA/TEX/CA high school at age 18, with a lot more time to grow up and fill out.

Bottom line: Meso has a lot of time, Stubbs is running out of time.

Plus, Mesoraco projects as a good-hitting catcher, which is something the Reds haven't had in years. On the other hand, Stubbs projects as a mediocre at best hitter in the Majors and he's an outfielder. Dime a dozen.

RedlegJake
06-16-2008, 12:36 AM
Care to illuminate on why? If you're refering to folks calling him a potential bust at the start of this thread, well its become all to common anymore. So much so that for me, its not funny anymore. But that's just my humble opinion.

I agree. There were lots of posters screaming bust on Mesaraco, a high school kid in his first year away from home. That would be like a college rescinding scholarships for every freshman who struggled. College kids I expect a bit faster progression but the adjustment that first year may still fool you if you're only looking a the stats.

As for Mes he's still hitting, his defense is coming along and day by day he's looking like that elusive hitting catcher that we all want the Reds to develop.

dougdirt
06-16-2008, 01:21 AM
Plus, Mesoraco projects as a good-hitting catcher, which is something the Reds haven't had in years. On the other hand, Stubbs projects as a mediocre at best hitter in the Majors and he's an outfielder. Dime a dozen.

Mediocre hitting gold glove centerfielders are a dime a dozen? Man, wish we had a dozen of those over the last 5 years when we sorely needed one.

dougdirt
06-16-2008, 01:27 AM
Many of us would be thrilled with success from Stubbs at this point in his career. He does get on base, has great speed, and plays good D. All of these are good attributes to playing centerfield. To me it just seems like he has not made consistent contact since the first month of the season. His average keeps going further south every week. I am not asking for Jay Bruce numbers but I would like to see some consistency in the contact department before I would move him to AA.

So far this month, not counting the all star game, he is walking 26% of the time he steps to the plate and has struck out just 17% of the time he has stepped to the plate. At this point in the season, despite being a level higher and in a tougher league, his walk rate is up from last year and his strikeout rate has been exactly the same, 24.7%. His line drive rate has nearly doubled from last year (13% to 25%). Despite nearly doubling his LD rate, his BABIP has stayed exactly the same. Thats not exactly supposed to happen.

Caveat Emperor
06-16-2008, 07:52 AM
Mediocre hitting gold glove centerfielders are a dime a dozen? Man, wish we had a dozen of those over the last 5 years when we sorely needed one.

They could've easily had one -- it was just easier for the team to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that Ken Griffey Jr. could still run in CF.

redsof72
06-16-2008, 11:54 AM
There will be a lot of debate on Mesoraco for a long time, simply because he is such a projection at this point. Post #108 above is a very good post. Right now, Mesoraco is still a deer in headlights. He has a lot of time to improve. If you talk to scouts, some will tell you he has a chance while some will say he will never even reach Triple-A. His defense right now is so far from anything close to acceptable that it is hard to say how much better he can get, but time will tell. Offensively, he usually gets the bat on the ball in key situations and there is something to be said for that. He is hitting a very soft .290 (many bloop hits or 18 hoppers that find a hole through the infield--rarely do you see him really blister a ball off the good part of the bat--very few extra base hits--probably a little lucky right now that the average is where it is, but hey, he makes contact and that is a big part of it.) But for a young kid out of a weak baseball state, he is holding his own against pretty good competition. He seems to be a good kid and a hard worker, so maybe he will get there. It is way, way too early to even try to guess. Has his defense improved? That is a better question to ask this time next year. The kid is carrying a lot of pressure and he knows where he is defensively, yet he goes out there and battles and you have to give him credit for that.

princeton
06-16-2008, 01:27 PM
Sorry for the rant, I just get frustrated sometimes reading about stubbs, mes, etc. And being told they are busts when we have a LONG ways to go before we can reach those types of conclusions.


I'm LOVING that thumbs' is hitting a bit. It comes as great relief to me especially after the Stubbs selection. furthermore, it gives me hope that there's help over "Yonder"

why get frustrated if someone suggests a player is a bust? I've never understood the personal investment of some posters in very young players who are really just stat sheets for most of us.

the poster that pans a player is really just hoping that the player could start playing a lot better.

TRF
06-17-2008, 09:45 AM
I'm LOVING that thumbs' is hitting a bit. It comes as great relief to me especially after the Stubbs selection. furthermore, it gives me hope that there's help over "Yonder"

why get frustrated if someone suggests a player is a bust? I've never understood the personal investment of some posters in very young players who are really just stat sheets for most of us.

the poster that pans a player is really just hoping that the player could start playing a lot better.

ding ding!

This post is nothing but win.

Like I want Stubbs to fail so I can be "cool" and say I saw it all along. I want Stubbs to hit the damn ball. I know he can take a walk.

With Mes, it was waaaaaay to early to call him a bust. Age, time in the minors and better players on the board have contributed to Stubbs getting that label.

Apples and Oranges is right.

Scrap Irony
06-17-2008, 10:46 AM
Respectfully disagreeing, TRF. Many of this board (and on most message boards, really, and in the media) criticize first because that's what's most likely to happen. Other players drafted after Stubbs will be better players. Why? Because it happens every year. If you criticize the draftee each year, you'll probably be right. The Reds are most likely not going to win the World Series. Why? Because only one team wins it. If you "don't like the team" at the beginning of the year, you'll probably be proven right.

Too, posters have ulterior motives. You may not agree with that statement. I think it's true. If you've said you don't like the pick-- repeatedly-- you don't want to look like an idiot. (No one does.) So, when the pick struggles, you alert everyone to that fact.

Others-- who also have ulterior motives and like the pick-- point out all the things they like about the pick and alert everyone when that pick does something well. They get catty about your insistence that pick is horrible. You get catty back.

After a short while, you want the pick to fail just so you can be right.

That's why we get people arguing-- incessantly-- about Dusty's lineups even though lineup construction means next to nothing in the overall scheme of wins and losses. They know they're right and they pound it into the ground. It's a way of saying, "Look at me! Look at me! I know what I'm talking about! I'm an expert because I knew they'd struggle to score runs!" Since even the best teams in baseball lose 60+ times, they can be proven right at least one day in three. If they root for a team like Cincinnati, they're right more often than not.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 11:13 AM
Respectfully disagreeing, TRF. Many of this board (and on most message boards, really, and in the media) criticize first because that's what's most likely to happen. Other players drafted after Stubbs will be better players. Why? Because it happens every year. If you criticize the draftee each year, you'll probably be right. The Reds are most likely not going to win the World Series. Why? Because only one team wins it. If you "don't like the team" at the beginning of the year, you'll probably be proven right.

Too, posters have ulterior motives. You may not agree with that statement. I think it's true. If you've said you don't like the pick-- repeatedly-- you don't want to look like an idiot. (No one does.) So, when the pick struggles, you alert everyone to that fact.

Others-- who also have ulterior motives and like the pick-- point out all the things they like about the pick and alert everyone when that pick does something well. They get catty about your insistence that pick is horrible. You get catty back.

After a short while, you want the pick to fail just so you can be right.

That's why we get people arguing-- incessantly-- about Dusty's lineups even though lineup construction means next to nothing in the overall scheme of wins and losses. They know they're right and they pound it into the ground. It's a way of saying, "Look at me! Look at me! I know what I'm talking about! I'm an expert because I knew they'd struggle to score runs!" Since even the best teams in baseball lose 60+ times, they can be proven right at least one day in three. If they root for a team like Cincinnati, they're right more often than not.

I agree 100%. Let's not fool ourselves.
__________________

RedsManRick
06-17-2008, 11:23 AM
That's why we get people arguing-- incessantly-- about Dusty's lineups even though lineup construction means next to nothing in the overall scheme of wins and losses. They know they're right and they pound it into the ground. It's a way of saying, "Look at me! Look at me! I know what I'm talking about! I'm an expert because I knew they'd struggle to score runs!" Since even the best teams in baseball lose 60+ times, they can be proven right at least one day in three. If they root for a team like Cincinnati, they're right more often than not.

And every team is going to win 60 times too. So I guess you could say that anybody who ever says anything about a baseball team is doing it just to show off how smart they are.

princeton
06-17-2008, 11:26 AM
After a short while, you want the pick to fail just so you can be right.

:rolleyes:

IslandRed
06-17-2008, 11:52 AM
So I guess you could say that anybody who ever says anything about a baseball team is doing it just to show off how smart they are.

Well, that's what I'm doing, I don't know about the rest of you. :p:

Scrap Irony
06-17-2008, 11:54 AM
And every team is going to win 60 times too. So I guess you could say that anybody who ever says anything about a baseball team is doing it just to show off how smart they are.


Gosh, you mean we frequent message boards to prove how smart we are?

;)

Ya think?

To be simplistic, I'm saying we all have little hidden agendas. To say differently is to deny that you're human.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 11:59 AM
To be simplistic, I'm saying we all have little hidden agendas. To say differently is to deny that you're human.

This message board works because the skillsets of the posters are being properly utilized, not because of intangibles, mister.

RedsManRick
06-17-2008, 12:11 PM
Gosh, you mean we frequent message boards to prove how smart we are?

;)

Ya think?

To be simplistic, I'm saying we all have little hidden agendas. To say differently is to deny that you're human.

I guess I've never considered that people visit message boards primarily as the means for ego inflation. That might be a side benefit, but you could say the same about virtually any social interaction.

I won't deny that humans are self-interested. But it's quite a leap from that to asserting that most people are posting to boost their egos.

TRF
06-17-2008, 12:11 PM
Respectfully disagreeing, TRF. Many of this board (and on most message boards, really, and in the media) criticize first because that's what's most likely to happen. Other players drafted after Stubbs will be better players. Why? Because it happens every year. If you criticize the draftee each year, you'll probably be right. The Reds are most likely not going to win the World Series. Why? Because only one team wins it. If you "don't like the team" at the beginning of the year, you'll probably be proven right.

Too, posters have ulterior motives. You may not agree with that statement. I think it's true. If you've said you don't like the pick-- repeatedly-- you don't want to look like an idiot. (No one does.) So, when the pick struggles, you alert everyone to that fact.

Others-- who also have ulterior motives and like the pick-- point out all the things they like about the pick and alert everyone when that pick does something well. They get catty about your insistence that pick is horrible. You get catty back.

After a short while, you want the pick to fail just so you can be right.

That's why we get people arguing-- incessantly-- about Dusty's lineups even though lineup construction means next to nothing in the overall scheme of wins and losses. They know they're right and they pound it into the ground. It's a way of saying, "Look at me! Look at me! I know what I'm talking about! I'm an expert because I knew they'd struggle to score runs!" Since even the best teams in baseball lose 60+ times, they can be proven right at least one day in three. If they root for a team like Cincinnati, they're right more often than not.
That's a good post, and to a certain degree, I agree.

However, I was one of the first that was on the slam Krivsky bandwagon in 2006. I hated the Arroyo trade (I was wrong) thought Ross was a nothing deal (wrong again, at least for one season), loved the Phillips trade, but thought it was a no brainer (again wrong). I hated just about every Krivsky move after that culminating in my countless tirades about The Trade.

Then the 2006 off-season started, and I began to see Krivsky for the big picture guy he really is. I think he SHOULD (not could) have gotten more for Kearns/Lopez AT THE TIME. But I agreed that they were the right guys to move.

And I think he had a really good 2006 draft. I just think he completely blew his first pick. Several position players taken AFTER Stubbs have passed him by. Had Dorn not suffered a freak laceration, he might be in AAA right now. Krivsky was really, really good at unearthing talent, but failed to see what was right in front of him. princeton is right that if he had selected Lincecum, he might still be employed. Harang, Lincecum, Volquez, Arroyo. It's possible that the Reds don't get Volquez if they have Lincecum. The OF would be Dunn, Hamilton and Bruce.

One bad draft pick. I don't want Stubbs to fail. I just don't see him succeeding in a timeframe conducive to a top 10 pick from a four year college. Also his skillset screams 4th OF.

M2
06-17-2008, 12:50 PM
Gosh, you mean we frequent message boards to prove how smart we are?

;)

Ya think?

To be simplistic, I'm saying we all have little hidden agendas. To say differently is to deny that you're human.

Speak for yourself. I come to this message board because I like talking about baseball. That's my agenda. I'm routinely amazed when others assume petty garbage like that and I categorically disagree that it's somehow wired into everyone's DNA (or even a majority of people). There's a ton of people who don't think like that, at all.

I love it when a kid does better than I think he will (e.g. I'm currently quite pleased with Darryl Thompson). I'm happy that Mesoraco is showing signs of life over the past month too. He's not playing like a top prospect, but he's at least playing like he might have a future. It was imperative that he do that.

Scrap Irony
06-17-2008, 01:12 PM
Fair enough. (And I agree, BTW, with most of your suposition abot Stubbs. I wouldn't have drafted him in '06, certainly. But he is what he is.)

What's great about many people on Redszone is that they'll either agree to disagree, or, even better, admit mistaken opinions openly. Many (most?) have openly stated when they were wrong about something. (One of my favorite personal opinions is when I argued Kearns would end up better than Al Kaline. Boy, that looks likely now, doesn't it?) Some don't. Shrug. Either way, here I'll be.

Inflating my ego.

dougdirt
06-17-2008, 01:18 PM
I'm happy that Mesoraco is showing signs of life over the past month too. He's not playing like a top prospect, but he's at least playing like he might have a future. It was imperative that he do that.

High School catcher in his first year in the MWL..... He is playing like a top prospect. Guys just don't hit in the MWL historically.

M2
06-17-2008, 02:00 PM
High School catcher in his first year in the MWL..... He is playing like a top prospect. Guys just don't hit in the MWL historically.

???

They hit every bit as well in the MWL as they do in the Sally League. It's hardly what I'd call a pitcher's league (e.g. the FSL or NY-P). Right now Mesoraco's hitting about as well in the MWL as Edwin Encarnacion did at the same age. That's good, but Encarnacion was not considered a top prospect at that time.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be perfectly thrilled if Mesoraco can develop into a competent catcher who can hit like Encarnacion does. That would make him a perfectly respectable major leaguer. Yet, let's not confuse that with star quality or the hyperbole of "top prospect."

flyer85
06-17-2008, 02:03 PM
Mesoraco has a lot of hurdles yet to clear, fortunately at the moment, time is on his side.

dougdirt
06-17-2008, 02:04 PM
???

They hit every bit as well in the MWL as they do in the Sally League. It's hardly what I'd call a pitcher's league (e.g. the FSL or NY-P). Right now Mesoraco's hitting about as well in the MWL as Edwin Encarnacion did at the same age. That's good, but Encarnacion was not considered a top prospect at that time.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be perfectly thrilled if Mesoraco can develop into a competent catcher who can hit like Encarnacion does. That would make him a perfectly respectable major leaguer. Yet, let's not confuse that with star quality or the hyperbole of "top prospect."

If Mesoraco were an outfielder right now his OPS would be higher than the average first year out of HS player in the MWL since 2002. The fact that he is a catcher puts him well ahead of the curve. He is hitting quite well.

flyer85
06-17-2008, 02:09 PM
He is hitting quite well.being a catcher, hitting is not the only issue. He needs to display quality defense.

dougdirt
06-17-2008, 02:13 PM
being a catcher, hitting is not the only issue. He needs to display quality defense.

That wasn't the point at hand in the discussion though. You are right with the comment, but it wasn't really what was being discussed.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 02:59 PM
In his first full season, Mesoraco is skipping a level, folks, and he's still doing well. Yet, there are those who describe him as if he is more suspect than prospect. There is no question that biases develop early (draft day) and are difficult to correct.

M2
06-17-2008, 03:01 PM
If Mesoraco were an outfielder right now his OPS would be higher than the average first year out of HS player in the MWL since 2002. The fact that he is a catcher puts him well ahead of the curve. He is hitting quite well.

Yes, he's hitting well. Why not just be happy with that and not try to overstate it?

Prospects are supposed to be ahead of the curve. It's what makes them prospects. We should demand that prospects play well. If they're behind the curve, then that's a glaring red flag. In fact, it's what many of us repeatedly said Mesoraco needed to do - get ahead of the curve instead of behind it. Now he needs to stay there for a few years.

Yet let's not pretend Mesoraco is wildly ahead of the curve where a "top prospect" would be. He's not on the short list of best catching prospects in the minors. Maybe he'll get there at some point and that would be great or maybe he'll progress along the solid, but not spectacular lines of a guy like Encarnacion.

cincyinco
06-17-2008, 03:12 PM
ding ding!

This post is nothing but win.

Like I want Stubbs to fail so I can be "cool" and say I saw it all along. I want Stubbs to hit the damn ball. I know he can take a walk.

With Mes, it was waaaaaay to early to call him a bust. Age, time in the minors and better players on the board have contributed to Stubbs getting that label.

Apples and Oranges is right.

If ya'll truly think I was making a comparision of stubbs and Mesoraco then you've missed my overall point entirely.

I'm asking for this collective community to be more objective and prudent in its analysis of our prospects. Let's learn and grow in our evaluation methods as a community here and get beyond arbitrary time tables, draft slots, and preconceived notions about what a prospect should or shouldn't do. Let's excercise the best objectivity, required patience and prudence we can.

It may come to pass that stubbs does indeed bust. Same with Mesoraco. Cueto, bailey, maloney' etc. Any of those players may never be what we thought they might be. Some could be more. That's part of the fun of it. But as with most of these guys, and yes, even stubbs, its just entirely too early when looking at the evidence to make a sound judgement either way right now. So can we all stop framing our opinions so matter of factly? That goes for both sides, I'd say.

Anyway, just how I feel about it.

princeton
06-17-2008, 03:12 PM
In his first full season, Mesoraco is skipping a level, folks, and he's still doing well. Yet, there are those who describe him as if he is more suspect than prospect. There is no question that biases develop early (draft day) and are difficult to correct.

the team has finished 5th, 3rd, 5th, 4th, 5th, 3rd and 5th. They've really drafted nobody but Jay Bruce and Joey Votto in spite of good positioning

most of the pollyannas died off.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 03:16 PM
the team has finished 5th, 3rd, 5th, 4th, 5th, 3rd and 5th. They've really drafted nobody but Jay Bruce and Joey Votto in spite of good positioning

most of the pollyannas died off.

talking about 1 player here, thanks -- Mesoraco

princeton
06-17-2008, 03:17 PM
talking about 1 player here, thanks -- Mesoraco

I do like how you get the last word in

whatcha cooking me for dinner tonight? ;)

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 03:21 PM
I do like how you get the last word in

whatcha cooking me for dinner tonight?

humble pie, princeton boy

M2
06-17-2008, 03:32 PM
In his first full season, Mesoraco is skipping a level, folks, and he's still doing well. Yet, there are those who describe him as if he is more suspect than prospect. There is no question that biases develop early (draft day) and are difficult to correct.

Why not learn from the Homer Bailey example? Instead of getting twitchy when people, rightly, point out that a kid needs to be doing better than he is (e.g. Mesoraco prior to the past month) or grousing that praise of him isn't effusive enough, why not take a long-term view? Where does the kid ultimately need to get to and what kind of player does he generally need to be along the way to get there?

Mesoraco's showing some ability. That's good, but everything that people fretted about on draft day are still very real concerns, just like they remained real concerns for Bailey even after his big 2006 2nd half (concerns that now have come home to roost). Mesoraco's got to hit, then hit, then hit some more. He's got to spend years hitting, not just one month. In roughly two years, you're going to want to see an .850+ OPS from him if he's indeed to be the kind of overall catcher on whom you spend a #15 pick.

How does he handle the wear of a full season behind the plate? How does he react when pitchers adjust to him? We'll find out. He's just started climbing the mountain.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 03:43 PM
Mesoraco's showing some ability. That's good, but everything that people fretted about on draft day are still very real concerns, just like they remained real concerns for Bailey even after his big 2006 2nd half (concerns that now have come home to roost). Mesoraco's got to hit, then hit, then hit some more. He's got to spend years hitting, not just one month. In roughly two years, you're going to want to see an .850+ OPS from him if he's indeed to be the kind of overall catcher on whom you spend a #15 pick.

How does he handle the wear of a full season behind the plate? How does he react when pitchers adjust to him? We'll find out. He's just started climbing the mountain.

Legitimate points, but just weeks ago it was us telling you -- when you were grousing about Mesoraco's first couple of months of pro ball -- to take the long view.

M2
06-17-2008, 03:53 PM
Legitimate points, but just weeks ago it was us telling you -- when you were grousing about Mesoraco's first couple of months of pro ball -- to take the long view.

I was taking the long view. Kids who walk into pro ball unable to hit generally don't go anywhere, kind of like John Oliver. Mesoraco needed to show some hitting acumen in 2008. If he didn't then there would have been little point in using "Mesoraco" and "prospect" in the same sentence without a "not" between them.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 04:01 PM
Mesoraco needed to show some hitting acumen in 2008.

He'd already displayed acumen by showing he could take a walk.

Some of us saw that and pointed it out as a positive sign. Others cried that he was a near washout, wrongly.

M2
06-17-2008, 04:06 PM
He'd already displayed acumen by showing he could take a walk.

Some of us saw that and pointed it out as a positive sign. Others cried that he was a near washout, wrongly.

Taking an occasional walk (15 in 155 PAs) and doing nothing else is just about the most meager positive sign you could cling to. His GCL season was a washout, a complete turd, a level of play to which he hopefully never descends again.

The kid needed to hit the reset button, which he's doing and good for him, the Reds and us that he is.

Caveat Emperor
06-17-2008, 04:10 PM
Taking an occasional walk (15 in 155 PAs) and doing nothing else is just about the most meager positive sign you could cling to. His GCL season was a washout, a complete turd, a level of play to which he hopefully never descends again.

Especially when you consider he was facing GCL pitchers, a couple of whom you could probably draw a walk off if you stepped into the box with the intention of never taking the bat off your shoulder.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 04:24 PM
Taking an occasional walk (15 in 155 PAs) and doing nothing else is just about the most meager positive sign you could cling to. His GCL season was a washout, a complete turd, a level of play to which he hopefully never descends again.

Yet, the walks were a positive nonetheless. We also pointed out the difficult environment, especially for a kid catcher, and the injury rumors. All dismissed by those who wanted only to point out his failings. In hindsight, might not there have been some truth to what we -- those who refused to put his career on alert -- were saying about his season? If you're objective, seeing what you see out of him now, you'll admit that there likely was. Players don't "hit the reset button," like an automaton. He's the same guy he was last year, and to some of us it's not as big a surprise as it sounds like it is to you.

dougdirt
06-17-2008, 04:29 PM
Yes, he's hitting well. Why not just be happy with that and not try to overstate it?

Prospects are supposed to be ahead of the curve. It's what makes them prospects. We should demand that prospects play well. If they're behind the curve, then that's a glaring red flag. In fact, it's what many of us repeatedly said Mesoraco needed to do - get ahead of the curve instead of behind it. Now he needs to stay there for a few years.

Yet let's not pretend Mesoraco is wildly ahead of the curve where a "top prospect" would be. He's not on the short list of best catching prospects in the minors. Maybe he'll get there at some point and that would be great or maybe he'll progress along the solid, but not spectacular lines of a guy like Encarnacion.

Well, the point is he is being compared to other prospects. Non prospects don't really play in the MWL their first year out of HS. They will repeat the GCL or play in the Pioneer League. Is he wildly ahead of the curve (Jay Bruce style)? No. He is however somewhat ahead of it.

M2
06-17-2008, 04:51 PM
Yet, the walks were a positive nonetheless. We also pointed out the difficult environment, especially for a kid catcher, and the injury rumors. All dismissed by those who wanted only to point out his failings. In hindsight, might not there have been some truth to what we -- those who refused to put his career on alert -- were saying about his season? If you're objective, seeing what you see out of him now, you'll admit that there likely was. Players don't "hit the reset button," like an automaton. He's the same guy he was last year, and to some of us it's not as big a surprise as it sounds like it is to you.

I'm neither surprised nor overwhelmed. He's hitting well - not great, well. It's what any kid taken in the first three rounds should be doing. You can try to dig a piece of edible meat out his 2007 turd, but it was still a turd, one he needs to never lay again.

The question with him was never whether he had any talent, it was whether his talent justified where the Reds picked him. That's still a wide open question, one that's going to be lingering for years. In hindsight, his career was and still is on alert, as it is for pretty much every kid in the minors who isn't dominating.

And after a year of professional coaching he'd better not be the same guy he was last year.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 05:00 PM
The question with him was never whether he had any talent, it was whether his talent justified where the Reds picked him. That's still a wide open question, one that's going to be lingering for years.

His talent and his position. I was intrigued by the pick because he is a catcher. Catching is in very short supply, and if he turns into a major league average catcher it will have been a great pick. If he becomes a backup, it's still a good pick. If he's a chip in a trade that works well for the Reds, it's a good pick. And I guarantee you that right now he's a commodity other teams value.

M2
06-17-2008, 05:06 PM
Well, the point is he is being compared to other prospects. Non prospects don't really play in the MWL their first year out of HS. They will repeat the GCL or play in the Pioneer League. Is he wildly ahead of the curve (Jay Bruce style)? No. He is however somewhat ahead of it.

Yes, somewhat ahead of the curve. Top prospects are well ahead of that.

More to the point, when you're the #15 overall pick it should be assumed that you're ahead of the curve, even when it's a prospects curve.

M2
06-17-2008, 05:18 PM
If he becomes a backup, it's still a good pick.

No, in that scenario it's a bad pick. Teams that are nominally counting on the draft to build and sustain their franchises can't be spending millions and the better part of a decade of development time to net a backup catcher. The Reds aren't going to be buying a lot of building material on the free agent market. They need to get bedrock with their top picks.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 05:33 PM
No, in that scenario it's a bad pick. Teams that are nominally counting on the draft to build and sustain their franchises can't be spending millions and the better part of a decade of development time to net a backup catcher. The Reds aren't going to be buying a lot of building material on the free agent market. They need to get bedrock with their top picks.

Nah, not a bad pick. OK pick. Over time, a solid percentage of 1st rounders will not make it at all. (My guess is it's at around 50% for #15 overall picks.) The rest become below average, average or above average (which is what I assume you refer to as "bedrock"). The above average guys are very few and far between. To me, any player who ends up contributing at the major league level over a period of several years is a successful pick, even if he never becomes the player he was touted to be.

Rojo
06-17-2008, 06:29 PM
To me, any player who ends up contributing at the major league level over a period of several years is a successful pick, even if he never becomes the player he was touted to be.

A successful pick? Yes. A successful first round pick? No.

gedred69
06-17-2008, 07:07 PM
His talent and his position. I was intrigued by the pick because he is a catcher. Catching is in very short supply, and if he turns into a major league average catcher it will have been a great pick. If he becomes a backup, it's still a good pick. If he's a chip in a trade that works well for the Reds, it's a good pick. And I guarantee you that right now he's a commodity other teams value.

Like your rationale. Some though will most likely never think it successful unless he becomes the next Joe Mauer, me thinks:D

Rojo
06-17-2008, 07:40 PM
Like your rationale. Some though will most likely never think it successful unless he becomes the next Joe Mauer, me thinks:D

Keep picking up back-up catchers in the first round and see how far you get.

Caveat Emperor
06-17-2008, 11:37 PM
Nah, not a bad pick. OK pick. Over time, a solid percentage of 1st rounders will not make it at all. (My guess is it's at around 50% for #15 overall picks.) The rest become below average, average or above average (which is what I assume you refer to as "bedrock"). The above average guys are very few and far between. To me, any player who ends up contributing at the major league level over a period of several years is a successful pick, even if he never becomes the player he was touted to be.

The Reds have whiffed on a ton of #1 picks in the past 10 years -- Ryan Wagner, Chris Gruler, Jeremy Sowers, David Espinosa, and Ty Howington. That's half of the last decade tied up in picks that either never dressed for the Reds or were ineffective in the one case they did (Wagner). When you include Bailey and Stubbs, both on the 'bust' course at the present time, and Kearns (never the player anyone thought he'd be) things get even more depressing.

The lack of successful drafting is apparent in the pitching on the current club -- their only good relievers are products of other teams (Cordero, Burton and Bray), their only good starters are products of other teams (Voluez, Harang, Arroyo), and the one good home-grown starter they've got (Cueto) was an international sign.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-18-2008, 08:30 AM
The Reds have whiffed on a ton of #1 picks in the past 10 years -- Ryan Wagner, Chris Gruler, Jeremy Sowers, David Espinosa, and Ty Howington. That's half of the last decade tied up in picks that either never dressed for the Reds or were ineffective in the one case they did (Wagner). When you include Bailey and Stubbs, both on the 'bust' course at the present time, and Kearns (never the player anyone thought he'd be) things get even more depressing.

The lack of successful drafting is apparent in the pitching on the current club -- their only good relievers are products of other teams (Cordero, Burton and Bray), their only good starters are products of other teams (Voluez, Harang, Arroyo), and the one good home-grown starter they've got (Cueto) was an international sign.

That is why I'm glad they took a college bat this year.

Hard to mess that up.

princeton
06-18-2008, 09:22 AM
If he becomes a backup, it's still a good pick.


I now understand the foundation for your oppressive optimism and chauvinistic defensiveness

there aren't a lot of people with your low standards. Unfortunately, many that share them have worked for the Reds.

dougdirt
06-18-2008, 12:21 PM
That is why I'm glad they took a college bat this year.

Hard to mess that up.

Hard to mess up taking a college bat? Brandon Larson, David Espinosa and Dane Sardinha are all waving high to you.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-18-2008, 12:28 PM
Hard to mess up taking a college bat? Brandon Larson, David Espinosa and Dane Sardinha are all waving high to you.


Espinosa was not a college bat.

Sardinha was a catcher taken with the 46th pick.

Larson had one good year prior to blowing up his SENIOR year at LSU and he wasn't a top 10 pick (#14).

dougdirt
06-18-2008, 12:32 PM
Espinosa was not a college bat.

Sardinha was a catcher taken with the 46th pick.

Larson had one good year prior to blowing up his SENIOR year at LSU and he wasn't a top 10 pick (#14).

My bad on Espinosa.... but the other two still scream hi. Both were taken before the second round out of college and both were pretty terrible. There are plenty of college bats that flop in the first round, just like everything else. The two most non flop guys (college corner infielders) still fail to be every day major leaguers more than half the time.

princeton
06-18-2008, 12:48 PM
That is why I'm glad they took a college bat this year.

Hard to mess that up.


agreed. If you really can't develop young players well, then taking the closest-to-the-majors is the best idea

given that the Reds are what they are, drafting a collegiate pitcher might have been even more logical, though they do tend to bring along their own self-destruct sequence.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-18-2008, 12:52 PM
My bad on Espinosa.... but the other two still scream hi. Both were taken before the second round out of college and both were pretty terrible. There are plenty of college bats that flop in the first round, just like everything else. The two most non flop guys (college corner infielders) still fail to be every day major leaguers more than half the time.


Alonso was a top 10 pick. If you want to use Larson, fine, even though he wasn't a top 10 pick and the pick was made 11 years ago. Sardinha was the Reds 3rd pick of the 2000 draft (behind Espinosa and Moseley). Hardly a position at #46 that screams "can't miss" pick.

A better comp to prove your point might be Stubbs.

Anyway, the point is that a college bat picked that high is much less risky of a pick, especially with the Reds weakness in developing pitching.


1999 - Ty Howington (1-14)
1999 - Ben Broussard (2-65)
1999 - Brandon Love (3-98)

2000 - David Espinosa (1-23)
2000 - Dustin Moseley (1B-34)
2000 - Dane Sardinha (2-46)
2000 - Ryan Snare (2-63)
2000 - David Gil (3-93)

2001 - Jeremy Sowers (1-20)
2001 - Justin Gillman (2-64)
2001 - Alan Moye (3-96)

2002 - Chris Gruler (1-3)
2002 - Mark Schramek (1-40)
2002 - Joey Votto (2-44)
2002 - Kyle Edens (3-75)

2003 - Ryan Wagner (1-14)
2003 - Thomas Pauly (2-51)
2003 - Jose Ronda (3-81)

2004 - Homer Bailey (1-7)
2004 - B.J. Szymanski (2-48)
2004 - Craig Tatum (3-78)

2005 - Jay Bruce (1-12)
2005 - Travis Wood (2-60)
2005 - Zach Ward (3-92)

2006 - Drew Stubbs (1-8)
2006 - Sean Watson (2-52)
2006 - Chris Valaika (3-84)

2007 - Devin Mesoraco (1-15)
2007 - Todd Frazier (1B-34)
2007 - Kyle Lotzkar (1C-53)
2007 - Zach Cozart (2-80)
2007 - Scott Carroll (3A-105)
2007 - Neftali Soto (3B-110)

2008 - Yonder Alonso (1-7)
2008 - Zach Stewart (3-84)

dougdirt
06-18-2008, 12:57 PM
Alonso was a top 10 pick. If you want to use Larson, fine, even though he wasn't a top 10 pick and the pick was made 11 years ago. Sardinha was the Reds 3rd pick of the 2000 draft (behind Espinosa and Moseley). Hardly a position at #46 that screams "can't miss" pick.

A better comp to prove your point might be Stubbs.

Anyway, the point is that a college bat picked that high is much less risky of a pick, especially with the Reds weakness in developing pitching.


1999 - Ty Howington (1-14)
1999 - Ben Broussard (2-65)
1999 - Brandon Love (3-98)

2000 - David Espinosa (1-23)
2000 - Dustin Moseley (1B-34)
2000 - Dane Sardinha (2-46)
2000 - Ryan Snare (2-63)
2000 - David Gil (3-93)

2001 - Jeremy Sowers (1-20)
2001 - Justin Gillman (2-64)
2001 - Alan Moye (3-96)

2002 - Chris Gruler (1-3)
2002 - Mark Schramek (1-40)
2002 - Joey Votto (2-44)
2002 - Kyle Edens (3-75)

2003 - Ryan Wagner (1-14)
2003 - Thomas Pauly (2-51)
2003 - Jose Ronda (3-81)

2004 - Homer Bailey (1-7)
2004 - B.J. Szymanski (2-48)
2004 - Craig Tatum (3-78)

2005 - Jay Bruce (1-12)
2005 - Travis Wood (2-60)
2005 - Zach Ward (3-92)

2006 - Drew Stubbs (1-8)
2006 - Sean Watson (2-52)
2006 - Chris Valaika (3-84)

2007 - Devin Mesoraco (1-15)
2007 - Todd Frazier (1B-34)
2007 - Kyle Lotzkar (1C-53)
2007 - Zach Cozart (2-80)
2007 - Scott Carroll (3A-105)
2007 - Neftali Soto (3B-110)

2008 - Yonder Alonso (1-7)
2008 - Zach Stewart (3-84)

Actually by the looks of it, the Reds should probably go the HS position player route. Votto and Bruce make everyone else on that list look like a bunch of chumps.

princeton
06-18-2008, 01:02 PM
Alonso was a top 10 pick. If you want to use Larson, fine, even though he wasn't a top 10 pick and the pick was made 11 years ago. Sardinha was the Reds 3rd pick of the 2000 draft (behind Espinosa and Moseley). Hardly a position at #46 that screams "can't miss" pick.

A better comp to prove your point might be Stubbs.

Anyway, the point is that a college bat picked that high is much less risky of a pick, especially with the Reds weakness in developing pitching.


1999 - Ty Howington (1-14)
1999 - Ben Broussard (2-65)
1999 - Brandon Love (3-98)

2000 - David Espinosa (1-23)
2000 - Dustin Moseley (1B-34)
2000 - Dane Sardinha (2-46)
2000 - Ryan Snare (2-63)
2000 - David Gil (3-93)

2001 - Jeremy Sowers (1-20)
2001 - Justin Gillman (2-64)
2001 - Alan Moye (3-96)

2002 - Chris Gruler (1-3)
2002 - Mark Schramek (1-40)
2002 - Joey Votto (2-44)
2002 - Kyle Edens (3-75)

2003 - Ryan Wagner (1-14)
2003 - Thomas Pauly (2-51)
2003 - Jose Ronda (3-81)

2004 - Homer Bailey (1-7)
2004 - B.J. Szymanski (2-48)
2004 - Craig Tatum (3-78)

2005 - Jay Bruce (1-12)
2005 - Travis Wood (2-60)
2005 - Zach Ward (3-92)

2006 - Drew Stubbs (1-8)
2006 - Sean Watson (2-52)
2006 - Chris Valaika (3-84)

2007 - Devin Mesoraco (1-15)
2007 - Todd Frazier (1B-34)
2007 - Kyle Lotzkar (1C-53)
2007 - Zach Cozart (2-80)
2007 - Scott Carroll (3A-105)
2007 - Neftali Soto (3B-110)

2008 - Yonder Alonso (1-7)
2008 - Zach Stewart (3-84)


actually, what stands out from your list (especially if you extend it to 1998) is that HS bats have been the Reds' best bet, not college bats

Kearns, Dunn, Votto, Bruce >> Broussard. Maybe Frazier will have something to say about that, but I doubt that Stubbs will.

then again, I think that the Reds think a bit too much about position when they draft a collegian. With Kearns, Dunn, Votto and Bruce, they were really looking at the bat first. With Stubbs, Sardinha, etc., they were looking at other things as well. Even back to Larson, you heard JimBo saying, "if he can stay at shortstop..." which, laughable as it turned out to be, explained why they thought his bat would play in the majors.

Yonder's a good safe choice. He's all bat.

Caveat Emperor
06-18-2008, 01:23 PM
then again, I think that the Reds think a bit too much about position when they draft a collegian.

Good bats always find a place to play -- and good bats are always in demand.

I'm not a big fan of drafting defensively limited players, but I'd almost certainly rather see a guy who has a reliable bat vs. a good glove guy that you *hope* will make the adjustment to hit at the next level.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-18-2008, 01:33 PM
Good bats always find a place to play -- and good bats are always in demand.

I'm not a big fan of drafting defensively limited players, but I'd almost certainly rather see a guy who has a reliable bat vs. a good glove guy that you *hope* will make the adjustment to hit at the next level.


Exactly.

At #7, I wouldn't have lost sleep if the Reds took Hosmer (if he was available). My point was that for a team that may have a small window of 2-3 years, the college bat is the safest pick. The 2nd safest pick is a top HS bat, but you have to wait a little longer.

I simply don't trust this organization to invest a top pick on a pitcher.

princeton
06-18-2008, 01:37 PM
Good bats always find a place to play -- and good bats are always in demand.

I'm not a big fan of drafting defensively limited players, but I'd almost certainly rather see a guy who has a reliable bat vs. a good glove guy that you *hope* will make the adjustment to hit at the next level.

JimBo once made a point of praising LA's Paul Konerko and stating that the Reds scouts just don't think enough about just the bat, and that things were about to change.

so far as I could tell, the change didn't last past Ben Broussard. the Reds went from no first basemen to too many first basemen (Casey, Konerko, Dmitri, Broussard) and that was that.

M2
06-18-2008, 02:19 PM
Actually by the looks of it, the Reds should probably go the HS position player route. Votto and Bruce make everyone else on that list look like a bunch of chumps.

I'm a big fan of HS position player picks (with the two exceptions being C and 1B, and it's not so much that I don't want any part of those guys, just that I'm wary of them in the first two rounds).

But find an athletic HS player with good hitting mechanics and I'm generally happy. This year's draft was a little thin on such players, particularly high in the draft. Too many questionable bats.

Had the Reds not closed out the 2006 season going 7-5 they would have had a shot at Jason Heyward in the draft. I imagine Heyward would get big love in these parts if the Reds picked him. He's certainly capable of playing that bang and run brand of baseball so many Reds fans grew up watching.

Espinosa was an interesting pick because he was well-regarded (the Marlins gave him serious #1 consideration). What we now know is that 2000 was the worst draft class ever and teams had pretty much nothing but bad selections confronting them up and down the board. A less forgivable mistake is John Oliver in 1996. If only Larry Barton and the Cali scouts had seized on Jimmy Rollins.

membengal
06-18-2008, 02:30 PM
How's the draft shaping up for 2009? Because the way the Reds are playing, they might be in or around a top 10 pick again...

Jay Bruce
06-18-2008, 02:41 PM
Alonso was a top 10 pick. If you want to use Larson, fine, even though he wasn't a top 10 pick and the pick was made 11 years ago. Sardinha was the Reds 3rd pick of the 2000 draft (behind Espinosa and Moseley). Hardly a position at #46 that screams "can't miss" pick.



While Sardinha did fall to the 2nd round, he was considered a first round talent. However, as a Boras client, with questions about his bat, he fell. Sardinha actually got 2.7 million guaranteed from the Reds in his major league contract. So, while he wasn't a top 10 pick, he was certainly paid like one.

M2
06-18-2008, 02:46 PM
How's the draft shaping up for 2009? Because the way the Reds are playing, they might be in or around a top 10 pick again...

Here's some info:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080606&content_id=2854072&vkey=draft2008&fext=.jsp

SD State RHP Steve Strasburg and Cartersville, GA OF Donovan Tate are the top pick favorites.

OnBaseMachine
06-18-2008, 03:03 PM
Had the Reds not closed out the 2006 season going 7-5 they would have had a shot at Jason Heyward in the draft. I imagine Heyward would get big love in these parts if the Reds picked him. He's certainly capable of playing that bang and run brand of baseball so many Reds fans grew up watching.


I was praying for Jason Heyward to fall to the Reds. I think in a few years everyone is going to be asking how in the world did Jason Heyward fall to the 14th overall pick? I honestly think he's going to be the best player to come out of the 2007 draft with David Price and Matt Wieters having a say in it. Sometimes it's not always a good thing to win a few extra games when you're out of the playoff race and those few extra wins in 2006 proved to be one of those times. A couple more losses and Jason Heyward is Reds property right now. Don't get me wrong, I think Mesoraco has a chance to be a solid big league catcher but Jason Heyward has a chance to be a superstar.

Caveat Emperor
06-18-2008, 03:05 PM
I simply don't trust this organization to invest a top pick on a pitcher.

The list of Reds developed pitchers in the past decade starts and ends with Johnny Cueto.

And he wasn't even a draft pick.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-18-2008, 03:14 PM
The list of Reds developed pitchers in the past decade starts and ends with Johnny Cueto.

And he wasn't even a draft pick.


Yep, Latin America is about their only chance to "develop" anything.

Be nice to have Almaraz back.

dougdirt
06-18-2008, 03:16 PM
Yep, Latin America is about their only chance to "develop" anything.


Why is that?

TRF
06-18-2008, 03:20 PM
Why is that?

just jumping in, but I'd say the international scouts have a better eye for pitching talent than the domestic scouts. Plus the instructors (Soto) at the dominican academy are a better starting point than those in Billings, Dayton, Sarasota.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-18-2008, 03:24 PM
Why is that?

I was responding and agreeing with this.


The list of Reds developed pitchers in the past decade starts and ends with Johnny Cueto.

And he wasn't even a draft pick.

dougdirt
06-18-2008, 03:26 PM
I was responding and agreeing with this.

I know, but why is it your opinion that the Reds can magically produce better international FA pitchers than domestic pitchers when for at least 2-3 years they will be getting the exact same coaching.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-18-2008, 03:31 PM
I know, but why is it your opinion that the Reds can magically produce better international FA pitchers than domestic pitchers when for at least 2-3 years they will be getting the exact same coaching.

Maybe because they can't understand English. :)

That or maybe by pitching year round in VZ or DR their whole life they are more of a finished product.

Let's face it, they do a pretty weak job developing pitchers in the draft. Maybe it's just a coincidence. Maybe they stink at developing them all and Cueto can't understand what Dick Pole is saying. I don't know.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-18-2008, 03:51 PM
Another possibility.

I think it takes a heckuva lot more courage, strength, and will to leave your country, where all you have ever known exists, and come to this country with not much in your pockets to try and make a life for yourself and your family.

My opinion is that American kids aren't looking at baseball the way the kids from VZ and DR are - as a way for a better life, to put food on the table and feed hungry tummies back home.

It is my opinion that American kids, at least today, are different. They are softer. They have other options. They like to play video games. They like to surf the internet. They are consumed with the cell phones and ipods. They even like to hunt and fish. Kids like Johnny Cueto and Edinson Volquez play baseball and only baseball nearly every day of their lives. They know it will be the only way they can escape the poverty that is all around them. As children, they play baseball with anything round they can get their hands on. They'll use any stick for a bat. They love the game more than anything and they are hungry.

It is also my opinion that maybe an organization that does more harm than good when developing pitching, will be more harmful to the kid that is softer and more pliable. Kids from Latin America are more sure of themselves. More hungry. More cocky. And probably less likely to freak out when things aren't going their way. Not having Mommy and Daddy or their PS3 to run too when things get bad makes them tougher and more likely to succeed. Especially in the pitching black hole that is the Reds farm system.

Hopefully they continue to listen to the Mario Soto's and stay very far away from the Dick Pole's.

princeton
06-18-2008, 03:55 PM
Another possibility.

I think it takes a heckuva lot more courage, strength, and will to leave your country, where all you have ever known exists, and come to this country with not much in your pockets to try and make a life for yourself and your family.

My opinion is that American kids aren't looking at baseball the way the kids from VZ and DR are - as a way for a better life, to put food on the table and feed hungry tummies back home.

It is my opinion that American kids, at least today, are different. They are softer. They have other options. They like to play video games. They like to surf the internet. They are consumed with the cell phones and ipods. They even like to hunt and fish. Kids like Johnny Cueto and Edinson Volquez play baseball and only baseball nearly every day of their lives. They know it will be the only way they can escape the poverty that is all around them. As children, they play baseball with anything round they can get their hands on. They'll use any stick for a bat. They love the game more than anything and they are hungry.

It is also my opinion that maybe an organization that does more harm than good when developing pitching, will be more harmful to the kid that is softer and more pliable. Kids from Latin America are more sure of themselves. More hungry. More cocky. And probably less likely to freak out when things aren't going their way. Not having Mommy and Daddy or their PS3 to run too when things get bad makes them tougher and more likely to succeed. Especially in the pitching black hole that is the Reds farm system.

Hopefully they continue to listen to the Mario Soto's and stay very far away from the Dick Pole's.


Reds' minor leaguers have been going Wii on your lawn?

BuckeyeRedleg
06-18-2008, 04:06 PM
Reds' minor leaguers have been going Wii on your lawn?

:)

gonelong
06-18-2008, 04:07 PM
Reds' minor leaguers have been going Wii on your lawn?

If I didn't know better I'd think you've somehow managed to grow a funny bone in the lab. :D


GL

membengal
06-18-2008, 05:46 PM
Here's some info:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080606&content_id=2854072&vkey=draft2008&fext=.jsp

SD State RHP Steve Strasburg and Cartersville, GA OF Donovan Tate are the top pick favorites.

Gracias, M2.

fearofpopvol1
06-19-2008, 12:14 AM
Happy Birthday, Devin! Today is D's 20th birthday.

lollipopcurve
06-19-2008, 07:34 AM
Here's some info:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...2008&fext=.jsp

SD State RHP Steve Strasburg and Cartersville, GA OF Donovan Tate are the top pick favorites.

Going to be a good year to have a top 10 pick, I think. Reds may be there.

Kingspoint
06-21-2008, 05:36 PM
Mediocre hitting gold glove centerfielders are a dime a dozen? Man, wish we had a dozen of those over the last 5 years when we sorely needed one.


We need one now and we'll need one next year and the year after that.

RedlegJake
06-21-2008, 11:36 PM
We have one that they won't even try. Chris Dickerson.

AAA numbers 2007-2008

623 PA, 528 AB, 139 hits, .263 BA, 16 2B, 12 3B, 16 HR, 88 Runs, 70 RBI, 77 BB, 8 HBP, 35 for 45 stealing (77.7%), 181 Ks, 10 SAC/SF, .360 OBP, 227 TB, .430 SP, .790 OPS
.097 IsoD, .167 IsoP

This equates to a full season of baseball at AAA. He has excellent plate discipline, draws walks, a bit better than average power, excellent speed, and is an excellent defensive player. He does strike out too much but he does it swinging at strikes, a distinction that isn't unimportant. To me he looks 100% better than Corey Patterson and his IsoD would indicate he could sustain similar numbers moving up, provide similar defensive play to Patterson with similar power. Jeezall Pete Reds - at least give this guy a shot!

Mario-Rijo
06-22-2008, 06:49 PM
We have one that they won't even try. Chris Dickerson.

AAA numbers 2007-2008

623 PA, 528 AB, 139 hits, .263 BA, 16 2B, 12 3B, 16 HR, 88 Runs, 70 RBI, 77 BB, 8 HBP, 35 for 45 stealing (77.7%), 181 Ks, 10 SAC/SF, .360 OBP, 227 TB, .430 SP, .790 OPS
.097 IsoD, .167 IsoP

This equates to a full season of baseball at AAA. He has excellent plate discipline, draws walks, a bit better than average power, excellent speed, and is an excellent defensive player. He does strike out too much but he does it swinging at strikes, a distinction that isn't unimportant. To me he looks 100% better than Corey Patterson and his IsoD would indicate he could sustain similar numbers moving up, provide similar defensive play to Patterson with similar power. Jeezall Pete Reds - at least give this guy a shot!

The knock on Dickerson is that his bat speed isn't sufficient for the majors to have sustained success. I'm just guessing here but he probably get's by down there by feasting on lots of guys who don't have the great fastballs and feasts on alot of off speed stuff.

They are seemingly similiar players but have different weaknesses, Patterson OTOH has very good bat speed but has the discipline of a......Corey Patterson.