PDA

View Full Version : young reds



votto08
11-21-2008, 04:20 AM
yonder alonzo , todd frazier, drew stubbs, chris valaika, adam rosales, daryl thompson, ramon ramirez, homer bailey, matt maloney, josh roenicke, danny herrera, carlos fisher, robert manuel

all these guys could see time with reds in 2009 or by 2010 so i was wondering if people thought maybe reds should just stay away from free agents this year maybe look to make a trade for young short stop and just let young kids play in 2009 and maybe trade a guy like bronson arroyo at trade dead line in 2009 for ss or another young catcher and maybe get young lhp in deal and just let young kids get some experience besides i think it would be fun watching young kids develope together then watching old retreads reds seem to always sign

Orodle
11-21-2008, 04:54 AM
I once heard from a scout that "every organization appears to have a future within their minor leagues according to their fans, however most dont understand only 1 or 2 of those prospects will be good....the others will just be average or below baseball players." If you look at the overall picture of the past hes dead on.

Of those you mention I would say only Alonzo, Frazier, and (maybe) Stubbs could be consistent starters at the major league level. Of the pitchers...I see a lot of middle of the road relievers and 5th starters. Only Bailey might be above the rest you mentioned and thats just basically based off of his "hype". I havnt been impressed with his "stuff" at any point.

Another scout was quoted as saying the Reds dont have much after Bruce and Cueto (speaking of minor leaguers/guys just up).

A top prospect basically means you are prospected as playing at the major league level at some point.

So my answer to your question would be to build a nucleus of young players (Volquez, Bruce, Cueto, Votto) and fill your needs with consistent players via free agency (doesnt have to be a huge signing) and then hope your system can develope guys like Alonso and Frazier into impact players. And then when you get the chance....aquire that big bat or pitcher via trade or free agency.

On top of that teams dont give good SS and Catching prospects for pitchers like Arroyo along with the contract hes carrying around.

redsfandan
11-21-2008, 07:35 AM
i don't think the reds are in a position to close the door on possible FA's. yeah we may have some help from the prospects but i don't think people should expect too much. we need a decent bat in the outfield, another catcher and a few arms for the bullpen. we don't have a catcher prospect that is ready, probably won't have an outfielder ready in march, and i wouldn't want to count on all of the open bullpen spots to be filled by prospects. teams always have to be open to any opportunities that can improve themselves and if you count on youth too much it can be ugly.

we may be able to deal arroyo for a player who has had his stock fall and maybe a player that is underrated cuz he doesn't project as more than an utility/bench player. like buck and kepp. but not a top prospect.

flash
11-21-2008, 08:54 AM
Good observations, but there are some omissions.

Justin Turner has batted .300 at almost every level. (I think he went .290 this year for the Lookouts. That has to be an indicator of future success. Sean henry has also shown steady process and the Reds should see him sometime in the next two years.

I also think that at some point the Reds will have a look at Viola. It is true that the starting pitching experiment with him has not gone well. Can he relieve like he has in the the past at a higher level?

Drew Stubbs, I just don't see him ever being an starter at the major league level. Aside from a couple of good months this past year his career has been an absolute bust. He just isn't very good despite all of the scouts raves.

I had believed from a couple of years ago when he hit .300 at Chattanooga that Hannigan would be a Reds catcher. I was right. Nobody ever thought of him as a prospect, he wasn't even drafted, but right now he is the opening day starting catcher. Considering how he always seems to do better the longer he is in a situation, I think he might bat between.290 and .300. (Okay, I'll blow everyone's mind, in two years he will be an all-star.)

Dickerson was also considered a bust, but after changing his stance and tearing up the IL from May on I believed he would be successful with the Reds. What worries me about him is the same as with Hopper. Is he strudy enough for a entire season?

Rosales has disapointed me. Maybe he got too m uch too fast. I am looking for him to improve.

redsfandan
11-21-2008, 09:07 AM
people can debate which prospects will or won't succeed but it's just impossible to know for sure if someone will succeed until they actually do it and for more than a couple months. the real problem is that, unless someone surprises us in february, most of them are at least year away anyway and i'm just not convinced a prospect should be rushed if they don't have to be.

flash
11-21-2008, 10:01 AM
Since we're having fun here. Was Hannigan the best rookie catcher in the NL this past season? He threw out a higher percentage of stealers than Soto. He also had a better OBP. His power numbers were not as high, nor were his RBI's per bat. His average was also lower. They both had fielding percentages of .995 Soto's range 8.35, Hannigan's 8.04

ChatterRed
11-21-2008, 10:40 AM
According to Walt, the free agents are asking for the moon. I just hope if the best ones get paid, he doesn't waste money on the leftovers.

podgejeff_
11-21-2008, 10:44 AM
I once heard from a scout that "every organization appears to have a future within their minor leagues according to their fans, however most dont understand only 1 or 2 of those prospects will be good....the others will just be average or below baseball players." If you look at the overall picture of the past hes dead on.

Of those you mention I would say only Alonzo, Frazier, and (maybe) Stubbs could be consistent starters at the major league level. Of the pitchers...I see a lot of middle of the road relievers and 5th starters. Only Bailey might be above the rest you mentioned and thats just basically based off of his "hype". I havnt been impressed with his "stuff" at any point.

Another scout was quoted as saying the Reds dont have much after Bruce and Cueto (speaking of minor leaguers/guys just up).

A top prospect basically means you are prospected as playing at the major league level at some point.

So my answer to your question would be to build a nucleus of young players (Volquez, Bruce, Cueto, Votto) and fill your needs with consistent players via free agency (doesnt have to be a huge signing) and then hope your system can develope guys like Alonso and Frazier into impact players. And then when you get the chance....aquire that big bat or pitcher via trade or free agency.

On top of that teams dont give good SS and Catching prospects for pitchers like Arroyo along with the contract hes carrying around.

Even if a lot of the guys named in the OP end up as average ballplayers, that would be huge for this team. A team with a floor of average players to a ceiling of stars is a team that is destined to win and win big. A bunch of talk has been made that you don't need a huge star FA acquisition in order to fix a lot of what's wrong with this team. You just need to replace the Corey Pattersons and Paul Bakos with average players.

Raising the floor of this team would help tremendously, and I think we can do most of that using the farm. It also doesn't hurt that our farm has produced a Bruce or Cueto, with Alonso, Frazier, and Soto on the way.

Ghosts of 1990
11-22-2008, 09:33 AM
I once heard from a scout that "every organization appears to have a future within their minor leagues according to their fans, however most dont understand only 1 or 2 of those prospects will be good....the others will just be average or below baseball players." If you look at the overall picture of the past hes dead on.

.

pretty great point

redsfandan
11-22-2008, 10:03 AM
true it's a valid point but it's also important for a team like the reds to understand the importance of the farm system and not to overrate OR underrate their prospects. the reds can't just buy a team that wins every year by trades/FA's that are expensive and cost prospects, they have to be smarter than that.

roby
11-22-2008, 06:27 PM
I once heard from a scout that "every organization appears to have a future within their minor leagues according to their fans, however most dont understand only 1 or 2 of those prospects will be good....the others will just be average or below baseball players." If you look at the overall picture of the past hes dead on.

.

The reds did better than this (1 or 2 good players out of all their prospects) last year alone with the emergence of Votto, Bruce, Cueto and to a lesser degree hanigan and Dickerson. That's pretty good production out of a bunch of rookies! And they STILL have Frazier, Alonzo, Bailey, Dorn, Roenicke, Henry, etc. who have a good chance of making a major league impact. That is better than one or two!

At the same time, I think you have to look for Free Agents and good trades. I don't understand all of this wait till 2010 stuff. I think, every year, you strive to put your best team on the field and win in all.

RED VAN HOT
11-22-2008, 07:38 PM
I once heard from a scout that "every organization appears to have a future within their minor leagues according to their fans, however most dont understand only 1 or 2 of those prospects will be good....the others will just be average or below baseball players." If you look at the overall picture of the past hes dead on.

If by "good" the scout was referring to MLB regulars with long careers rather than simply players that reach the bigs, then it seems pretty accurate. Overall, however, I think a decent farm system needs to produce more than 1-2 rookies each year.

The total number of players on the 25 man rosters of the 30 teams is 750. If each team produced 2 rookies each year, it would require 12.5 years to turn over the rosters. I suspect that 12.5 years is longer than the average ML career. Thus, I feel that teams must average more than 2 ML arrivals per year to offset those leaving the game.

Clearly, the Reds were not getting this out of their farm system in the recent past. The depth of the farm now, however, makes it likely that the Reds will exceed 2 per year. The trick is to determine which ones are likely regulars and which ones will be marginal contributors. Those that project as marginal are more valuable as trade bait. Most of us fans are not able to make that evaluation and are inclined to overrate potential.

Orodle
11-22-2008, 11:44 PM
Since we're having fun here. Was Hannigan the best rookie catcher in the NL this past season? He threw out a higher percentage of stealers than Soto. He also had a better OBP. His power numbers were not as high, nor were his RBI's per bat. His average was also lower. They both had fielding percentages of .995 Soto's range 8.35, Hannigan's 8.04

I dont think the sample size is there to argue stats on Hannigan's time in the majors.

flash
11-24-2008, 05:03 PM
I like Hanigan. Let me tell you why.

He is not supposed to be anywhere near a major league baseball field. He was never drafted by anyone. He was probably signed because the Reds needed someone to catch at Dayton. But he bats above .250 for a couple of years which isn't bad for a catcher before ballooning to .296 at Carolina then .326 at Chattanooga where he was a back-up catcher and a platooned first-baseman. He loses his job to Votto in 2006, the Reds pretty much ignor him as a catcher. He could have easily quit, but he didn't. In 2007 he bats .299 for the Lookouts and because of injuries he finally gets to Louisville. Meanwhile the Reds have signed slop catchers like Ross, Christmas, and they are all excited about Manusco. What does Hanigan do at Louisville. Only hit .324 and began the charge to a pennant foor the Bats. Most may say that Bruce ignitiated the charge, but the Bats really took off after Bruce left. It was Hanigan's team. Then, once again Hanigan gets a look because all of the Reds slop catchers are either injured or cut and the Reds relent. What does Hanigan do. Post higher numbers as a catcher than the Reds have seen in years.

All of this from the walk on guy. No draft, no headlines, just hard work and determination. The guy is special.

roby
11-24-2008, 06:53 PM
I like Hanigan. Let me tell you why.

He is not supposed to be anywhere near a major league baseball field. He was never drafted by anyone. He was probably signed because the Reds needed someone to catch at Dayton. But he bats above .250 for a couple of years which isn't bad for a catcher before ballooning to .296 at Carolina then .326 at Chattanooga where he was a back-up catcher and a platooned first-baseman. He loses his job to Votto in 2006, the Reds pretty much ignor him as a catcher. He could have easily quit, but he didn't. In 2007 he bats .299 for the Lookouts and because of injuries he finally gets to Louisville. Meanwhile the Reds have signed slop catchers like Ross, Christmas, and they are all excited about Manusco. What does Hanigan do at Louisville. Only hit .324 and began the charge to a pennant foor the Bats. Most may say that Bruce ignitiated the charge, but the Bats really took off after Bruce left. It was Hanigan's team. Then, once again Hanigan gets a look because all of the Reds slop catchers are either injured or cut and the Reds relent. What does Hanigan do. Post higher numbers as a catcher than the Reds have seen in years.

All of this from the walk on guy. No draft, no headlines, just hard work and determination. The guy is special.

Amen! Flash. :thumbup:

mace
11-24-2008, 07:13 PM
I'm in the Hanigan camp as well, in part because the qualities described above apply much more to catchers, I think, than anybody else. Also, if you watch the guy hit you see somebody who looks like he knows what he's doing -- which the results corroborate. And the kicker for me came when the Reds talked about how well he handled pitchers. That was the question out there, and it was answered with a ringing affirmative. The way I see it, what's not to like?

Hondo
11-24-2008, 07:15 PM
Yeah, I still remember when Jim Bowden wouldn't pull the trigger on John Roper and Tim Costo for Fred McGriff from San Diego...

That Trade still haunts me...

Thank goodness for the Bruces, Vottos, of the World...

Where the Kearns, Pat Watkins, Chad Mottolas, Ty Howingtons, Bobby Bashams, etc... have failed my expectations....

redsfandan
11-25-2008, 07:19 AM
nice post flash. i like having some players that fight for a spot on a team to mix in with the bonus babies. fwiw, with a catcher i don't care nearly as much about offense as i do defense. they haven't kept varitek around in boston cuz they're sentimental. they've kept him cuz he was still one of the best defensive catchers. personally i don't care if hanigan beats soto in any offensive stats cuz he is at least better defensively than bako, ross, and valentin. we do need to get another catcher to at least back up hanigan but IF he can keep doing what he's been doing i'd be just fine with him as the catcher for 100+ games in 2009.

mroby85
11-25-2008, 10:54 AM
I like Hanigan. Let me tell you why.

He is not supposed to be anywhere near a major league baseball field. He was never drafted by anyone. He was probably signed because the Reds needed someone to catch at Dayton. But he bats above .250 for a couple of years which isn't bad for a catcher before ballooning to .296 at Carolina then .326 at Chattanooga where he was a back-up catcher and a platooned first-baseman. He loses his job to Votto in 2006, the Reds pretty much ignor him as a catcher. He could have easily quit, but he didn't. In 2007 he bats .299 for the Lookouts and because of injuries he finally gets to Louisville. Meanwhile the Reds have signed slop catchers like Ross, Christmas, and they are all excited about Manusco. What does Hanigan do at Louisville. Only hit .324 and began the charge to a pennant foor the Bats. Most may say that Bruce ignitiated the charge, but the Bats really took off after Bruce left. It was Hanigan's team. Then, once again Hanigan gets a look because all of the Reds slop catchers are either injured or cut and the Reds relent. What does Hanigan do. Post higher numbers as a catcher than the Reds have seen in years.

All of this from the walk on guy. No draft, no headlines, just hard work and determination. The guy is special.

Sounds like a very typical Reds player from the last 10 years of losing to me.
I don't dislike hanigan, but he's not going to be a big addition to the team either.

Orodle
11-25-2008, 11:53 AM
I agree on Hanigan....give him the starting job and see what he can do. Looking at his minor league stats he definately looks like a Billy Beane guy. Someone thats been looked over, pushed to the side, but puts up stats...especially OBP is very good over the years.