PDA

View Full Version : Prospect #8 runoff vote



OnBaseMachine
11-01-2008, 07:21 PM
It's down to Chris Dickerson, Juan Duran, and Juan Francisco for the Reds eighth best prospect. This poll is open only one day as opposed to the normal two.

I'll again go with Juan Francisco at #8.

WMR
11-01-2008, 07:21 PM
JUAN DURAN :D

Hit me baby juan more time

Lockdwn11
11-01-2008, 07:56 PM
Dickerson

SMcGavin
11-01-2008, 08:07 PM
I like Dickerson, but the guy is 27. His window for helping the Reds is pretty small.

And if I have to choose between the two high potential guys, I'm taking the one who had a .799 OPS in the Florida State League during his age 20/21 season. Francisco it is.

kheidg-
11-01-2008, 08:51 PM
For me, toss up between Duran and Dickerson.

AmarilloRed
11-01-2008, 09:21 PM
I like Dickerson, but the guy is 27. His window for helping the Reds is pretty small.

He's only 26. He won't be 27 until next April. I will vote once again for Dickerson, as I think he has the best chance to help the Reds.

gedred69
11-01-2008, 09:43 PM
I'll skip this vote. The choices are ridiculous. a professional Minor Leaguer, Wily Mo in the making, and someone who is barely past puberty. I am disappointed in the lack of vision for the foreseeable future.

OnBaseMachine
11-01-2008, 09:50 PM
Oh well, we have plenty of voters. And that professional minor leaguer posted an OPS of .862 in Louisville and 1.021 in 102 major league atbats. Francisco has enormous potential and Juan Duran is one of the best hitting prospects to ever come out of the Dominican Republic according to the folks down there. I think a lot of teams would love to have one of those three as their eighth best prospect.

gedred69
11-01-2008, 09:54 PM
Oh well, we have plenty of voters. And that professional minor leaguer posted an OPS of .862 in Louisville and 1.021 in 102 major league atbats. Francisco has enormous potential and Juan Duran is one of the best hitting prospects to ever come out of the Dominican Republic according to the folks down there. I think a lot of teams would love to have one of those three as their eighth best prospect.

This totally misses the point. No sense in elaborating.

dougdirt
11-01-2008, 10:58 PM
I'll skip this vote. The choices are ridiculous. a professional Minor Leaguer, Wily Mo in the making, and someone who is barely past puberty. I am disappointed in the lack of vision for the foreseeable future.

Regardless of how you feel about the choices for this vote, what does that have to do with the 'lack of vision for the foreseeable future'? No one on this forum makes decisions for the Reds, so I just don't see where that statement really fits....

REDblooded
11-02-2008, 12:13 AM
So, in gedred's book of prospectdom, there's Too young, Too old, and Too one-dimensional?

Projectability isn't one of your favorite words is it?

Danny Serafini
11-02-2008, 12:31 AM
By all rights Juan Duran has already won this vote in the normal voting thread, therefore he has my vote in this one.

JayBruceFan
11-02-2008, 12:38 AM
I voted for Francisco because I don't like voting for a young minor leaguer that hasn't played against anyone important yet

I like players that are producing now, not someone that may produce a few years from now

I like Duran's upside but that's all he has right now, his upside and projected skills

icehole3
11-02-2008, 06:45 AM
I'll skip this vote. The choices are ridiculous. a professional Minor Leaguer, Wily Mo in the making, and someone who is barely past puberty. I am disappointed in the lack of vision for the foreseeable future.

in a perfect world we'd all like the Reds to have 4 teams of minor league all-stars who are sure fire hall of famers, relax dude its all in fun.

mth123
11-02-2008, 07:18 AM
I like Dickerson, but the guy is 27. His window for helping the Reds is pretty small.

And if I have to choose between the two high potential guys, I'm taking the one who had a .799 OPS in the Florida State League during his age 20/21 season. Francisco it is.

I think Age is a bit over-rated in the free agent era. Top guys become too expensive after 5 or 6 years so looking longer than that when evaluating what a prospect could mean to a team may not be real useful. Age is important when projecting a player and how he'll perform, but once he's ready, the longevity angle is low on the list of things to consider. Since my criteria is based solely on how I think the player will help the Reds, I don't consider the age they hit they big leagues so much. They'll be free agents after 6 years anyway, so its only the cheap years that the team really gets benefit from them. (If we're simply projecting who will have the better career, I'd probably give age a lot more weight, and that may be the objective of these polls, but I'm looking at it only from a value to the Reds standpoint.)

Homer Bailey is an example of a guy who is going to have to be kept on the roster in 2010 and may not be ready at age 23. He may even get pigeonholed as a swingman while collecting service time and his price increasing. Many times these guys end up let go for pennies on the dollar and emerge as top players with their new teams.

On the other hand, with Dickerson you get his prime seasons on the cheap where he can help the team at his best. He's the player he's going to be and the Reds have him under control through his best years. They may actually could get 6 full seasons of positive contributions from him and then allow him to walk. Some of these younger guys end up with a couple of wasted years and just start to become real productive before they get to the point where the team needs to make a roster or a monetary decision while the player still has his best years ahead of him. The team actually ends up with fewer years of production from some of the younger prospects simply because of how the timetable plays out.

I voted Dickerson here. He's going to be a 400+ At Bat guy for the major league team who will add plus defense and speed in the process. Duran and Francisco may never be heard from at the major league level.

Screwball
11-02-2008, 08:00 AM
I voted for Francisco because I don't like voting for a young minor leaguer that hasn't played against anyone important yet

I like players that are producing now, not someone that may produce a few years from now


Um, Francisco isn't producing now (not where it counts anyway), and he still won't until "a few years from now."

I think the right vote is Duran. With prospects, ceiling and projectabilty have a lot to do with it IMO. JD has boatloads of both. He probably has the highest ceiling of any prospect in the Reds' MiL system, and that's keeping in mind that I think very highly of Yonder Alonso and Neftali Soto. Given Francisco's glaring need to vastly improve his OBP skills, I gotta give the nod to Duran over him.

Having said all that, hopefully what JF is showing in the AFL can be sustained and subsequently carried over to AA. If so, we really do have a potential star on our hands.

Kc61
11-02-2008, 09:16 AM
Duran is such a raw prospect at this point it's very difficult to rate him.

Dickerson strikes out one third of his official at bats, that's tough to overcome.

Francisco doesn't walk enough but produces big time and is only 21. The poster who commented that "he isn't producing now", must be ignoring or discounting 34 doubles and 23 homers with 92 RBIs for a 20-21 year old at High A ball. Guess that doesn't count for some reason.

It's Francisco.

Also, it's up to OBM, but sometimes a run-off will be most conclusive if it's limited to two guys.

OnBaseMachine
11-02-2008, 11:53 AM
Also, it's up to OBM, but sometimes a run-off will be most conclusive if it's limited to two guys.

Yeah, I was hoping to limit it to only two guys but only four votes separated the three. Either way, it looks like this one is gonna be very tight again.

OnBaseMachine
11-02-2008, 03:18 PM
Three hours of voting left. I was hoping for around 80 votes, so far we're at 78.

kpresidente
11-02-2008, 03:24 PM
I think Age is a bit over-rated in the free agent era. Top guys become too expensive after 5 or 6 years so looking longer than that when evaluating what a prospect could mean to a team may not be real useful. Age is important when projecting a player and how he'll perform, but once he's ready, the longevity angle is low on the list of things to consider. Since my criteria is based solely on how I think the player will help the Reds, I don't consider the age they hit they big leagues so much. They'll be free agents after 6 years anyway, so its only the cheap years that the team really gets benefit from them. (If we're simply projecting who will have the better career, I'd probably give age a lot more weight, and that may be the objective of these polls, but I'm looking at it only from a value to the Reds standpoint.)

Just curious, do you consider Danny Richar a prospect? His career numbers are similar to Valaika's, although he had a bad year last year. The difference being that he's 3 years older. How about Rosales? Given your criteria, I'd think those guys would rank higher than they would on a "pure prospect" list.

gedred69
11-02-2008, 03:34 PM
in a perfect world we'd all like the Reds to have 4 teams of minor league all-stars who are sure fire hall of famers, relax dude its all in fun.

I'm totally relaxed, "Dude". Give that advice to those who opted to assail my comment. I'm merely saying, there are other prospects with a shot at helping the org. at the MLB level a lot sooner.

mth123
11-02-2008, 03:44 PM
Just curious, do you consider Danny Richar a prospect? His career numbers are similar to Valaika's, although he had a bad year last year. The difference being that he's 3 years older. How about Rosales? Given your criteria, I'd think those guys would rank higher than they would on a "pure prospect" list.

I have Valaika at number 16 on my list. Rosales is at number 24 (but maybe under-rated a bit as I think about it now) and Richar not rated. In the cases of both Valaika and Rosales, they are decent bats if they can stay at MI defensively but I have doubts that either will be able to. They don't have enough bat for a corner spot IMO. I'd consider moving Rosales higher because I actually think he is more likely to able to handle 2B than Valaika, but Valaika is the more noted player so I rated him higher because I think he has more value on the trade market. They could both be supersub types though, and while I think that is valuable those seem to be easier to find these days than in earlier eras. I don't think Richar even has enough bat for the MI.

They differ from Dickerson because Dickerson projects as a plus defender in CF and his bat should be plenty for his position. Dickerson could be an everyday player (or at least a most of the time player based on him being the LH side of a platoon). I don't see any of the players you mentioned holding any position on a regular basis on the major league level.

camisadelgolf
11-02-2008, 04:03 PM
FWIW, Richar no longer qualifies as a rookie.

New Fever
11-02-2008, 04:27 PM
I have Valaika at number 16 on my list. Rosales is at number 24 (but maybe under-rated a bit as I think about it now) and Richar not rated. In the cases of both Valaika and Rosales, they are decent bats if they can stay at MI defensively but I have doubts that either will be able to. They don't have enough bat for a corner spot IMO. I'd consider moving Rosales higher because I actually think he is more likely to able to handle 2B than Valaika, but Valaika is the more noted player so I rated him higher because I think he has more value on the trade market. They could both be supersub types though, and while I think that is valuable those seem to be easier to find these days than in earlier eras. I don't think Richar even has enough bat for the MI.

They differ from Dickerson because Dickerson projects as a plus defender in CF and his bat should be plenty for his position. Dickerson could be an everyday player (or at least a most of the time player based on him being the LH side of a platoon). I don't see any of the players you mentioned holding any position on a regular basis on the major league level.

MTH123, it has been said numerous times in the BA chats by different analysts that Valakia would be an above average second baseman defensively. Are you saying that he will have to move off short or he can't play second either?

kheidg-
11-02-2008, 04:31 PM
Forgot about Rosales, maybe he should be added sometime in the near future. Along with Hanigan.

mth123
11-02-2008, 04:38 PM
MTH123, it has been said numerous times in the BA chats by different analysts that Valakia would be an above average second baseman defensively. Are you saying that he will have to move off short or he can't play second either?

I have my doubts that he can play either one. A lot of guys move to second by default when they can't play SS, it doesn't make them good 2B. I don't want a defender at 2B in the Todd Walker, Jeff Keppinger mold unless his bat is in the Jeff Kent mold. What evidence is there that he can play 2B? The team is still fooling around with him at SS. Valaiaka needs to play 2B regularly the same way Frazier needs to get an extended look at 3B. This team needs to find out what they really have and if they have positions that match their bats. Up the middle players better be plus defenders or sent packing IMO unless the bat is top notch. Valaika projects as a .750ish OPS guy in his prime and that requires a plus defender to hold a regular spot up the middle.

BigRed07
11-02-2008, 04:51 PM
Didn't the Reds have Valaika play 2nd in Hawaii last year? Maybe after seeing him play 2nd that they felt that he was a better prospect at SS. I think he can play SS at the next level.

Betterread
11-02-2008, 05:06 PM
I have my doubts that he can play either one. A lot of guys move to second by default when they can't play SS, it doesn't make them good 2B. I don't want a defender at 2B in the Todd Walker, Jeff Keppinger mold unless his bat is in the Jeff Kent mold. What evidence is there that he can play 2B? The team is still fooling around with him at SS. Valaiaka needs to play 2B regularly the same way Frazier needs to get an extended look at 3B. This team needs to find out what they really have and if they have positions that match their bats. Up the middle players better be plus defenders or sent packing IMO unless the bat is top notch. Valaika projects as a .750ish OPS guy in his prime and that requires a plus defender to hold a regular spot up the middle.
I have multiple responses to your post:
1. I agree with you about trying Valaika and Frazier and different positions. It would be great if one of them could play good SS with their better than average bats, but it seems the Reds don't see them as SSs. It will be interesting to see how the Reds handle these guys.
2. The Reds should not be focused on no less than plus defenders up the middle. Let's just try to improve on the below-average defense we currently have (excluding BP) up the middle. IF the Reds have average or better, that's sufficient improvement for me. Then we can look at 3B....
3. I don't know what projections you are relying on for Valaika - but his major league hitting projects as a safe .800 to .850. He doesn't have Jay Bruce potential, but he's a legitimate hitter with a mature plate approach. The issue with him (as you correctly identified) is where will he play?

OnBaseMachine
11-02-2008, 05:10 PM
One hour left of voting and we're tied. LOL.

mth123
11-02-2008, 05:17 PM
I have multiple responses to your post:
1. I agree with you about trying Valaika and Frazier and different positions. It would be great if one of them could play good SS with their better than average bats, but it seems the Reds don't see them as SSs. It will be interesting to see how the Reds handle these guys.
2. The Reds should not be focused on no less than plus defenders up the middle. Let's just try to improve on the below-average defense we currently have (excluding BP) up the middle. IF the Reds have average or better, that's sufficient improvement for me. Then we can look at 3B....
3. I don't know what projections you are relying on for Valaika - but his major league hitting projects as a safe .800 to .850. He doesn't have Jay Bruce potential, but he's a legitimate hitter with a mature plate approach. The issue with him (as you correctly identified) is where will he play?

1, Agree.

2. You are right that average would be an improvement, but average or below defense up the middle w/o studly bat equals bench player IMO.

3. I think Valaika will struggle to get on base enough to have an .800ish OPS. He may have enough pop to be a 15 to 20 HR guy and slug in the low 400s. but I don't see an OBP north of .335. He could probably have a season or two above .800, but it will be BABIP driven and not something that we should expect annually IMO. I think Ronnie Belliard is a decent comp, but Belliard was a better OBP guy in the minors. If that is what we're looking at on offense, then I'd want him to be a plus player on defense or I'd try somebody else.

kpresidente
11-02-2008, 05:17 PM
They differ from Dickerson because Dickerson projects as a plus defender in CF and his bat should be plenty for his position. Dickerson could be an everyday player (or at least a most of the time player based on him being the LH side of a platoon). I don't see any of the players you mentioned holding any position on a regular basis on the major league level.

See, that's the thing. Richar has the exact same career minor-league OPS as Dickerson at a weaker offensive position. He's rangy in the field, although he makes a lot of errors. I don't see how one's a top-10 prospect and the other's not even on the list.

OnBaseMachine
11-02-2008, 05:19 PM
See, that's the thing. Richar has the exact same career minor-league OPS as Dickerson at a weaker offensive position. He's rangy in the field, although he makes a lot of errors. I don't see how one's a top-10 prospect and the other's not even on the list.

Richar has 223 career major league atbats, therefore he's lost his rookie and prospect eligibility.

mth123
11-02-2008, 05:41 PM
See, that's the thing. Richar has the exact same career minor-league OPS as Dickerson at a weaker offensive position. He's rangy in the field, although he makes a lot of errors. I don't see how one's a top-10 prospect and the other's not even on the list.

Dickerson improved as he progressed and got his game together. He is coming off of a very good 2008 and is a player on the upswing. Dickerson also has better plate discipline and more raw power. Richar had a poor 2008 and lost some steam, but I see your point about his numbers overall. It concerns me that his On Base skills are more batting average driven and more prone to fluctuation. Of course, if a guy can hit it doesn't matter.

Perhaps I give 2008 too much weight. I'd be thrilled to be wrong, because I do think that Richar has the defensive ability for 2B and shares the LH platoon advantage that contributes to Dickerson's package. I'd be real happy if Richar bounces back and proves you right and me wrong. You've given me something to consider. Maybe Richar can be the LH bench bat this team needs in 2009.

fearofpopvol1
11-02-2008, 05:43 PM
Francisco. Dickerson is too old to be considered a prospect for me. Duran has yet to prove he can shave.

Mario-Rijo
11-02-2008, 06:11 PM
Dickerson improved as he progressed and got his game together. He is coming off of a very good 2008 and is a player on the upswing. Dickerson also has better plate discipline and more raw power. Richar had a poor 2008 and lost some steam, but I see your point about his numbers overall. It concerns me that his On Base skills are more batting average driven and more prone to fluctuation. Of course, if a guy can hit it doesn't matter.

Perhaps I give 2008 too much weight. I'd be thrilled to be wrong, because I do think that Richar has the defensive ability for 2B and shares the LH platoon advantage that contributes to Dickerson's package. I'd be real happy if Richar bounces back and proves you right and me wrong. You've given me something to consider. Maybe Richar can be the LH bench bat this team needs in 2009.

Then why no love for Valaika? I understand the concept that getting a hit is prone to more fluctuation than working a walk (for the most part). However you are right if a guy can hit he can hit and you can pretty much expect the same BA every season. When looking for comps for Valaika you should look really hard at Michael Young and Ian Kinsler. He falls directly in the middle of those 2 but he hasn't had his age 23-24 seasons in minor league ball yet.

I expect a .780-.800 OPS every season for Valaika with an .850+ in his prime years. Sure that may require an improvement in plate discipline but there's no reason yet to not expect him to improve it. His defense won't be Kent bad either in fact I'd expect it to be better than adequate at 2B. Still I wouldn't expect him to be a superstar or anything but he looks like a better than average starting 2B to me so far.

OnBaseMachine
11-02-2008, 06:20 PM
Forgot about Rosales, maybe he should be added sometime in the near future. Along with Hanigan.

I'll add them around #10 or 11 if that's OK. I would add them now but I don't think they'll receive any votes at #9.

OnBaseMachine
11-02-2008, 06:22 PM
This poll is officially closed. Juan Francisco beat out Juan Duran by two votes.

kpresidente
11-02-2008, 06:24 PM
Dickerson improved as he progressed and got his game together. He is coming off of a very good 2008 and is a player on the upswing. Dickerson also has better plate discipline and more raw power. Richar had a poor 2008 and lost some steam, but I see your point about his numbers overall. It concerns me that his On Base skills are more batting average driven and more prone to fluctuation. Of course, if a guy can hit it doesn't matter.

Perhaps I give 2008 too much weight. I'd be thrilled to be wrong, because I do think that Richar has the defensive ability for 2B and shares the LH platoon advantage that contributes to Dickerson's package. I'd be real happy if Richar bounces back and proves you right and me wrong. You've given me something to consider. Maybe Richar can be the LH bench bat this team needs in 2009.

Here's how I've always looked at prospects. "Real prospects" are guys between the ages of 20-24 (at least for batters, pitchers can be a little older), who are somewhere between A+ and AAA, and are age-appropriate to their level.

That doesn't mean guys outside of that age bracketing are lost causes or anything, it just means I think about them differently. For older players, their window is small, and I need to see real production right now, otherwise I'm not looking at them. Looking at it that way, you're justified in giving Dickerson a higher rating, because Richar had his chance and blew it. That doesn't mean you drop him completely, though, because if the production comes back (which it very well could), so does the prospect status. It's just there's no more benefit of the doubt based on your tools anymore. But the same is true for Dickerson. He's earned his chance, but if the production's not there, and not there early, you're going to have to have a real quick hook with him.

The real young guys, on the other hand, are such a big mystery I have to keep them in a seperate category as well. I'm no scout, and there's no stats to go by, so all you have is what you've read about their tools.

That's why I don't get all into the prospect lists so much. For me, Duran, Dickerson and Francisco are so different based on their ages I have no real idea how to compare them. So I have 3 lists..."young prospects", "prospects", and "old prospects", and I don't mix them up. Duran is only interesting to me insofar as he compares to Rodriguez, not as he compares to Dickerson. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Betterread
11-02-2008, 09:35 PM
This poll is officially closed. Juan Francisco beat out Juan Duran by two votes.
This process is flawed. Duran initially won by one vote. Then the decision was made to do a runoff - Francisco won by 2. Why not another runoff? If not, what must the margin be to win?

OnBaseMachine
11-03-2008, 10:59 AM
The margin to win is around five votes in a regular poll. There's not much you can do in a runoff.

TOBTTReds
11-03-2008, 11:27 AM
This process is flawed. Duran initially won by one vote. Then the decision was made to do a runoff - Francisco won by 2. Why not another runoff? If not, what must the margin be to win?

I don't think it is flawed. It is just that the people who voted for other players than those 3, favored JF in front of Duran. I voted for Duran in the runoff, though I voted for his Dominican side kick (Yorman) in the regular vote.

OnBaseMachine
11-03-2008, 11:30 AM
I don't think it is flawed. It is just that the people who voted for other players than those 3, favored JF in front of Duran. I voted for Duran in the runoff, though I voted for his Dominican side kick (Yorman) in the regular vote.

Yorman is Venezuelan. :p: