PDA

View Full Version : Sickel's Reds Top 20...



laxtonto
12-07-2008, 12:42 AM
1) Yonder Alonso, 1B, Grade B+: Love the walks, strong power, but sharp platoon split keeps him from higher grade at this time.
2) Todd Frazier, INF, Grade B: I like him. A nice solid hitter, maybe not a star, but should be productive. Only question is defense.

3) Chris Valaika, SS, Grade B: I like him, too. Looks like a fine hitter, even without strong plate discipline. Probably more a 2B than SS.

4) Neftali Soto, 3B, Grade B: Very impressed with his long-term potential. Could use more patience, but strikeout rate isn’t bad and he’s very young.

5) Drew Stubbs, OF, Grade B-: Where did the power go? Other skills are coming along nicely.

6) Josh Roenicke, RHP, Grade B-: Very impressive arm, could be a closer perhaps.

7) Zach Stewart, RHP, Grade B-: Strong arm, command issues, could move fast in the pen. Maybe a C+?

8) Kyle Lotzkar, RHP, Grade B-: Might downgrade to C+. Very young, tons of potential, command and injury issues. This is one of my “intuition guys” though.

9) Daryl Thompson, RHP, Grade C+: He’s a solid pitcher if he can stay healthy, a big if. I’ve liked him since I shadow-drafted him out of high school.

10) Juan Francisco, 3B, Grade C+: Enormous power potential, very young, but dismal discipline. Did reduce strikeouts last year.

11) Ramon Ramirez, RHP, Grade C+: Could rank as high as 8 depending on what you want to emphasize. Small right-hander with a strong arm, took step forward in ’08.

12) Chris Dickerson, OF, Grade C+: Tremendous tools. He’s more a .250 hitter than a .300 guy, but with speed, power, and defense. Older prospect, which limits his grade.

13) Matt Maloney, LHP, Grade C+: Another guy I have liked for awhile, could be a decent strike-throwing fourth starter.

14) Chris Heisey, OF, Grade C+: Like the speed, gets on base, could be solid fourth outfielder.

15) Sean Henry, OF, Grade C+: A bit less speed than Heisey, but with more pop.

16) Dan Dorn, OF, Grade C+: Kills right-handers, could be a solid platoon bat.

17) Dallas Buck, RHP, Grade C+: Sleeper prospect acquired from Arizona, could surprise now that he’s further away from Tommy John.

18) Robert Manuel, RHP, Grade C+: One of several guys who could slot in nicely as a middle reliever.

19) Carlos Fisher, RHP, Grade C: Considered C+, another potential relief arm with ability.

20) Yorman Rodriguez, OF, Grade C: Too young and raw to rank higher in my system. Need to see some numbers first.

21) Juan Duran, OF, Grade C: Too young and raw to rank higher in my system. Need to see some numbers first.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/12/6/683712/cincinnati-reds-top-20-pro#comments

fearofpopvol1
12-07-2008, 01:12 AM
For the sake of comparison...

Redszone's Top Prospects

Prospect #1 - Yonder Alonso
Prospect #2 - Todd Frazier
Prospect #3 - Neftali Soto
Prospect #4 - Drew Stubbs
Prospect #5 - Chris Valaika
Prospect #6 - Kyle Lotzkar
Prospect #7 - Daryl Thompson
Prospect #8 - Juan Francisco
Prospect #9 - Juan Duran
Prospect #10 - Chris Dickerson
Prospect #11 - Devin Mesoraco
Prospect #12 - Danny Dorn
Prospect #13 - Yorman Rodriguez
Prospect #14 - Zach Stewart
Prospect #15 - Josh Roenicke
Prospect #16 - Ramon Ramirez
Prospect #17 - Zach Cozart
Prospect #18 - Matt Maloney
Prospect #19 - Carlos Fisher
Prospect #20 - Chris Heisey
Prospect #21 - Ryan Hanigan

fearofpopvol1
12-07-2008, 01:18 AM
Looks like the major differences are with Juan Duran and Yorman Rodriguez, which I agree with Sickels on. I think it's way too early to call someone like Duran a #9 prospect at this point.

Maybe even bigger is that Mesoraco didn't even make his list while RZ has him at #11. I still think that's too high, but I think he would crack my own top 20, though it would be at the bottom.

There is a big difference in opinion on Roenicke too. Sickels thinks a lot of higher of him, but I agree with RZ on this one. I'm not as overwhelmed.

OnBaseMachine
12-07-2008, 03:27 AM
SYSTEM IN BRIEF:

The Reds graduated a lot of talent last year, and while things have thinned at the top, there is more depth in this system than is commonly realized. They have an interesting mix of polished college-type bats (Alonso, Frazier, Valaika), along with toolsy Latin American guys at the lower levels. While they could use some more impact arms, they have several pitchers who look like they will provide bullpen depth down the line. There’s quite a bit of C+ type talent here and guys who could be good role players.

Ranking players like Yorman Rodriguez and Juan Duran is difficult. I have usually not included many guys like that in the book until they hit North America, but will stick more in this year. I know what the scouting reports say on these players, and you will no doubt see them ranked much higher in other sources. But so many of the uber-tools guys fail completely that I just can’t go higher on these grades until we get something objective to examine. Even North American high school kids are easier to grade since scouts can often see them in showcase competition and get better reads on their ability.

Remember what Grade C means: “These are guys who have something positive going for them, but who may have a question mark or three, or who are just too far away from the majors to get an accurate feel for. A few Grade C guys, especially at the lower levels, do develop into stars.”

http://www.minorleagueball.com/

camisadelgolf
12-07-2008, 06:45 AM
Sean Henry is above Danny Dorn. For the sake of sanity, I won't comment any further about how to dumb I think this list is.

mth123
12-07-2008, 07:57 AM
Sean Henry is above Danny Dorn. For the sake of sanity, I won't comment any further about how to dumb I think this list is.

I think Dorn is top 10 myself, but Henry is underrated. Probably because the Reds didn't put him on the 40 man. He's got some power, speed, is a good corner defender, he's in line for AAA and just turned 23 in August.

camisadelgolf
12-07-2008, 08:29 AM
I think Dorn is top 10 myself, but Henry is underrated. Probably because the Reds didn't put him on the 40 man. He's got some power, speed, is a good corner defender, he's in line for AAA and just turned 23 in August.

If he were a middle infielder or center fielder, he'd be a top prospect. Because he's a corner outfielder, I'm not too high on him at all.

mth123
12-07-2008, 10:24 AM
If he were a middle infielder or center fielder, he'd be a top prospect. Because he's a corner outfielder, I'm not too high on him at all.

I think he can be a RH 4th OF or platoon player. Actually, he and Dorn himself might make a decent platoon with Henry coming in for defense when Dorn starts (or hitting when some team throws the Lefty reliever at him later in the game).

I don't picture him as a starter, but beyond Alonso, Soto and maybe Frazier and Cozart, I don't think any of the Reds position prospects at the levels high enough to matter at this point are starting caliber players. Maybe Stubbs and Francisco if he learns to not swing at everything. Even Dickerson and Dorn are platoon players and Hanigan definitely needs somebody to share the job with. Their are a lot of useful guys, but like Sickels says, the order is probably interchangeable depending on what you looking for.

dougdirt
12-07-2008, 10:54 AM
I don't really have a problem with Sickels thinking Dorn is the #16 guy, as long as he didn't have Henry in front of him. While it appears Dorn is a platoon guy now, he has something going for him.... He doesn't really struggle with discipline against lefties at all.


Player Split PA K BB K% B%
Dorn vsL 94 19 11 20.2 11.7
Dorn vsR 294 65 31 22.1 10.5
The only real difference is the power he hits for against righties, which leads to a higher BABIP (because of the HR's), which in turn leads to the higher average and OBP. If he had just 2 more hits versus lefties last year, even if they were singles (and for the record that would have his BABIP against lefties at .305), it would have raised his line against lefties to .260/.351/.395. Basically it would turn him into a solid hitter against lefties to bat down in the lineup who absolutely kills righties. Simply put, Dorn isn't a little bloop hit here or there every 2 months versus lefties away from being a guy who could start full time with 30 HR a year potential.

Mario-Rijo
12-07-2008, 11:01 AM
If he were a middle infielder or center fielder, he'd be a top prospect. Because he's a corner outfielder, I'm not too high on him at all.

Because they are not playing him that much in CF and 2B maybe you assume that he can't play there. He has played there, does seem to have the knack & tools to do so but for whatever reason is being overlooked. I kinda expect him to be an Oriole bye next week and we'll probably eventually regret not having him as a solid part of our 25 man roster.

camisadelgolf
12-07-2008, 11:06 AM
I think he can be a RH 4th OF or platoon player. Actually, he and Dorn himself might make a decent platoon with Henry coming in for defense when Dorn starts (or hitting when some team throws the Lefty reliever at him later in the game).

I don't picture him as a starter, but beyond Alonso, Soto and maybe Frazier and Cozart, I don't think any of the Reds position prospects at the levels high enough to matter at this point are starting caliber players. Maybe Stubbs and Francisco if he learns to not swing at everything. Even Dickerson and Dorn are platoon players and Hanigan definitely needs somebody to share the job with. Their are a lot of useful guys, but like Sickels says, the order is probably interchangeable depending on what you looking for.

I like the idea of Dorn/Henry platoon, but even in that scenario, Dorn would be the one with the majority of playing time and production.

mth123
12-07-2008, 01:15 PM
I like the idea of Dorn/Henry platoon, but even in that scenario, Dorn would be the one with the majority of playing time and production.

Agree. I have Dorn in the top 10. But Henry at 15 isn't a stretch. I have Henry at 20 and did not rate Duran or Rodriguez.

camisadelgolf
12-07-2008, 01:25 PM
Agree. I have Dorn in the top 10. But Henry at 15 isn't a stretch. I have Henry at 20 and did not rate Duran or Rodriguez.

That's understandable, but we just grade prospects differently. Henry would miss out on my top-40 prospect list, but I like to value high ceilings. If a guy with a high ceiling fulfills his potential, he can be worth a lot more than 10 Sean Henrys.

mth123
12-07-2008, 01:38 PM
That's understandable, but we just grade prospects differently. Henry would miss out on my top-40 prospect list, but I like to value high ceilings. If a guy with a high ceiling fulfills his potential, he can be worth a lot more than 10 Sean Henrys.

That's probably true. Do the Reds have enough of those to push Henry that far down? I don't think so.

camisadelgolf
12-07-2008, 01:56 PM
That's probably true. Do the Reds have enough of those to push Henry that far down? I don't think so.

Yeah, that's very debatable. Personally, I think the Reds do, but some people clearly don't agree with me. However, in no particular order, here is a list of 30+ guys I thought of at the top of my head who I would rank ahead of Henry, though.

Juan Duran
Yorman Rodriguez
Yonder Alfonso
Drew Stubbs
Todd Frazier
Devin Mesoraco
Nefi Soto
Kyle Lotzkar
Daryl Thompson
Juan Francisco
Danny Dorn
Josh Roenicke
Zach Stewart
Chris Valaika
Zack Cozart
Justin Turner
J.C. Sulbaran
Ismael Guillon
Shea Snowden
Evan Hildenbrandt
Travis Wood
Jeremy Horst
Alex Buchholz
Sean Watson
Justin Reed
Alex Oliveras
Ramon Ramirez
Carlos Fisher
Brandon Waring
Dallas Buck
Dave Sappelt
Ryan Hanigan
Matt Maloney
Pedro Viola
Chris Heisey

Mario-Rijo
12-07-2008, 05:48 PM
That's understandable, but we just grade prospects differently. Henry would miss out on my top-40 prospect list, but I like to value high ceilings. If a guy with a high ceiling fulfills his potential, he can be worth a lot more than 10 Sean Henrys.

But how can you rate a prospect strictly on ceiling? I mean in the end it's not about ceiling but whether or not they can make it at all. At least it should come into play before you start taking ceiling into consideration shouldn't it?

For example you have Justin Reed on your list, explain to me why he is more valuable a prospect than Henry at this current time. I mean at some point production, skill and the like has to play a part in it.

Plus I'd argue that if it's ceiling that you lean towards then one of us is wrong about who has the higher one between Henry and Heisey.

RedLegSuperStar
12-07-2008, 06:28 PM
what about Homer Bailey?

dougdirt
12-07-2008, 06:49 PM
what about Homer Bailey?

He isn't a prospect anymore as he has pitched more than 50 innings in the majors.

Caveat Emperor
12-07-2008, 07:26 PM
No top-ranked starting pitching prospects?

Feels like old-times. ;)

camisadelgolf
12-07-2008, 07:47 PM
But how can you rate a prospect strictly on ceiling? I mean in the end it's not about ceiling but whether or not they can make it at all. At least it should come into play before you start taking ceiling into consideration shouldn't it?

For example you have Justin Reed on your list, explain to me why he is more valuable a prospect than Henry at this current time. I mean at some point production, skill and the like has to play a part in it.

Plus I'd argue that if it's ceiling that you lean towards then one of us is wrong about who has the higher one between Henry and Heisey.

Just so it's clear, I try to balance performance with ceiling. However, if a player hasn't yet played, ceiling is pretty much all I have to base it off of. I would rate Yorman Rodriguez as a Reds top-10 prospect based on what I've heard about him even though I've never seen him played or any of his stats.

In the Justin Reed/Sean Henry comparison, I'll show you my train of thought.

Justin Reed is said to have the physical skills to play a good center field. He apparently made some of the best catches in Dayton this year. Sean Henry, on the other hand, is seen as more of a corner outfielder who could play center in a pinch.
Advantage: Reed

Justin Reed has more power potential and is listed as slightly bigger than Sean Henry.
Advantage: Reed

As far as speed goes, it appears that the two are even. I believe Reed is a little faster, but Henry apparently knows how to use his speed better.
Advantage: none

Sean Henry will always win the plate discipline battle.
Advantage: neither

Henry and Reed seem to be on about the same pace as far as advancing through levels at the same age. Justin Reed was supposedly more raw coming out of high school, so he may spend some more time in A+, but time will tell. So far, neither one has an advantage.
Advantage: neither

Although Justin Reed is much more raw, he does have a higher ceiling. His first year out of high school was a disaster, but his second year in rookie ball showed great improvement. His numbers at Dayton were mediocre, but I don't think the numbers do his improvement justice. He had doubled his playing time from the year before, his defense improved significantly, and he showed more power. 2009 will be a big year for him. If he and Henry both duplicate their 2008 performances, then I'll concede that Henry is the better prospect, but in the meantime, I like that Reed has more raw skills and still has a chance to turn them into production. Reed's numbers are underwhelming, but they're not far from respectable. It's just a matter of building on what he's learned before he's a top-tier prospect.

As for Henry vs. Heisey, they're pretty much the same except that Chris Heisey plays much better defense and has noticeably better plate discipline.

redsof72
12-08-2008, 03:49 PM
Couple of things about the list that caught my attention. First, he is perhaps the first person I have seen to rank Stewart that highly, and I have stated several times here that I think Stewart belongs in the top 10 and ahead of Lotzkar. Second, he does not have Mesoraco in his top 20, which I also agree with, though I am not ready to completely write off Mesoraco. Most of these lists by national writers still go heavily on reputation, so I was surprised to see he did not have Mesoraco in there.

I also agree with the idea that we need more information on the 16 year olds before we try to rate them. I talked to some players who saw those guys in instructional league and they said it was crazy that they got the money they did based on what they saw, ability-wise. I am thinking back to a player from a few years back named Alejandro Diaz who was also signed to a huge contract as a free agent out of the Dominican and once he got here, it was obvious that he was overrated. Duran and Rodriguez may become stars someday but all we know about them now is that they got a lot of money and are young.

lollipopcurve
12-08-2008, 04:04 PM
I talked to some players who saw those guys in instructional league and they said it was crazy that they got the money they did based on what they saw, ability-wise. I am thinking back to a player from a few years back named Alejandro Diaz who was also signed to a huge contract as a free agent out of the Dominican and once he got here, it was obvious that he was overrated.

Redsof72, while it's definitely possible these two players have too much hype, isn't it pretty standard that older, less well compensated players will have this kind of reaction?

OnBaseMachine
12-08-2008, 04:05 PM
Redsof72, while it's definitely possible these two players have too much hype, isn't it pretty standard that older, less well compensated players will have this kind of reaction?

That's exactly what I was thinking. Plus, they are only 16-years old. Even the best 16 years old in the world have flaws. Jay Bruce wasn't much of a prospect when he was 16...

redsof72
12-08-2008, 05:10 PM
No question some of the older players who got very small signing bonuses might have some resentment towards guys who got millions. That point could be valid.

HBP
12-08-2008, 05:27 PM
No top-ranked starting pitching prospects?

Feels like old-times. ;)

Hopefully Lotzkar has changed that by June next year.

TRF
12-08-2008, 05:30 PM
Couple of things about the list that caught my attention. First, he is perhaps the first person I have seen to rank Stewart that highly, and I have stated several times here that I think Stewart belongs in the top 10 and ahead of Lotzkar. Second, he does not have Mesoraco in his top 20, which I also agree with, though I am not ready to completely write off Mesoraco. Most of these lists by national writers still go heavily on reputation, so I was surprised to see he did not have Mesoraco in there.

I also agree with the idea that we need more information on the 16 year olds before we try to rate them. I talked to some players who saw those guys in instructional league and they said it was crazy that they got the money they did based on what they saw, ability-wise. I am thinking back to a player from a few years back named Alejandro Diaz who was also signed to a huge contract as a free agent out of the Dominican and once he got here, it was obvious that he was overrated. Duran and Rodriguez may become stars someday but all we know about them now is that they got a lot of money and are young.

The problem with Diaz was that IF he were actually the age he said he was, his upside was huge.

Too bad he was SEVERAL years older than that.

Mario-Rijo
12-08-2008, 06:42 PM
Just so it's clear, I try to balance performance with ceiling. However, if a player hasn't yet played, ceiling is pretty much all I have to base it off of. I would rate Yorman Rodriguez as a Reds top-10 prospect based on what I've heard about him even though I've never seen him played or any of his stats.

I guess that's reasonable as some have ranked Michael Inoa pretty high for the A's. However I am of the mind a player has to show me something 1st before I rank him high, and even more so a 16-17 year old kid. There is simply too many of these guys who never pan out at all despite their hype.


In the Justin Reed/Sean Henry comparison, I'll show you my train of thought.

Justin Reed is said to have the physical skills to play a good center field. He apparently made some of the best catches in Dayton this year. Sean Henry, on the other hand, is seen as more of a corner outfielder who could play center in a pinch.
Advantage: Reed

Justin Reed does have the physical tools to play CF but you're opinon on Henry I don't quite understand. I have on at least 2 maybe 3 different occassions listed a scouting report on Henry via BA that says he has the tools & the aptitude to play CF as well, I don't know if you have seen that or not. The Reds not playing him in CF is a mystery too me.

BA:

Though Henry, 22 (this should say 21), has made much slower progress than Castro, he was beginning to find his groove with St. Lucie. A 20th-round pick in 2004 from Diablo Valley (Calif.) CC, Henry spent nearly three full years in short-season ball, not joining low Class A Hagerstown until last August. An aggressive, athletic player with both bat and running speed, the righthanded-hitting Henry was off to a .293/.355/.456 start with St. Lucie, with 11 homers and 57 RBIs in 450 at-bats. He also chipped in 26 doubles, seven triples and 18 steals (in 29 attempts). Drafted as a shortstop, Henry was moved to second base in 2005 and to center field the next year, where he has shown aptitude.


Justin Reed has more power potential and is listed as slightly bigger than Sean Henry.
Advantage: Reed

As far as speed goes, it appears that the two are even. I believe Reed is a little faster, but Henry apparently knows how to use his speed better.
Advantage: none

Reed does have more speed and power potential but Henry plays with more of each.


Sean Henry will always win the plate discipline battle.
Advantage: neither

If Henry has the plate discipline advantage, how is this neither, it's Reed vs. Henry?


Henry and Reed seem to be on about the same pace as far as advancing through levels at the same age. Justin Reed was supposedly more raw coming out of high school, so he may spend some more time in A+, but time will tell. So far, neither one has an advantage.
Advantage: neither

Again if this is a straight up comparison Henry played in AA, Reed in Low A. Henry very well could/should advance based on his play at this level, Reed not at all did he perform well enough to advance.


Although Justin Reed is much more raw, he does have a higher ceiling. His first year out of high school was a disaster, but his second year in rookie ball showed great improvement. His numbers at Dayton were mediocre, but I don't think the numbers do his improvement justice. He had doubled his playing time from the year before, his defense improved significantly, and he showed more power. 2009 will be a big year for him. If he and Henry both duplicate their 2008 performances, then I'll concede that Henry is the better prospect, but in the meantime, I like that Reed has more raw skills and still has a chance to turn them into production. Reed's numbers are underwhelming, but they're not far from respectable. It's just a matter of building on what he's learned before he's a top-tier prospect.

Fair enough Reed likely is the more talented of the 2 but I happen to think that Henry's talents are not as far away from Reed's as people think. I could be wrong but I would state that the BA article suggests that he has pretty good raw talent.


As for Henry vs. Heisey, they're pretty much the same except that Chris Heisey plays much better defense and has noticeably better plate discipline.

I'd say Henry is the more talented of the 2 but that Heisey is more polished which results in better production because Heisey isn't completely devoid of talent himself. And if I'm right Henry's production as he moves up will improve as he continues to refine his game, Heisey's production isn't likely to improve much and maybe not even stay the same, except for maybe an increase in pop that a lot of prospects get at age 24. Oh yeah that was the other thing about these 2 Heisey did most of his damage as a 23 yr old in A+ whereas Henry did most of his as a 22 yr old in AA.

All in all Reed might have more talent but hasn't come close to putting it together, will he ever, I have my doubts. But if he does it better be this coming year and in a big way. But Henry has finally put it together and at higher levels which IMO is more important and what makes him more valuable. Heisey and Henry are somewhat close overall but I think there is reason to expect a little more out of Henry which again makes him more valuable, seeing as how both have played quite well to this point.

sh0619
12-08-2008, 09:14 PM
kudos to you Mario-Rijo...

15fan
12-08-2008, 10:50 PM
One look at that list tells me that the cavalry is not on its way any time soon.

No MI gloves to be seen.

No C.

Matt Maloney is the only LHP.

A bunch of 4th/5th OFs, maybe.

2009 Better be a gooooooood draft.

dougdirt
12-08-2008, 11:03 PM
One look at that list tells me that the cavalry is not on its way any time soon.

No MI gloves to be seen.

No C.

Matt Maloney is the only LHP.

A bunch of 4th/5th OFs, maybe.

2009 Better be a gooooooood draft.

Why do we need some cavalry is the question? Our rotation is under control through at least 2010, 2011 options on Arroyo and Harang.

Bruce and Votto are both here for 5 or more years unless we trade them. Phillips is here through 2011 with an option for 2012. Edwin is here for a few more years.

Yeah, we have a few needs like you noted, but there are trades and free agency options as well. Talent can be traded as there are guys blocked or guys coming up that make a veteran expendable. The Reds currently have a lot of talent at third base between EE, Frazier, Soto and Francisco. A move or two of these guys could help fill the other needs. The system doesn't always have to produce your needs, it can also be used to acquire your needs.

HBP
12-08-2008, 11:26 PM
No, there may not be any talent comparable to Bruce, Cueto, or Votto in the system now (save Alonso). But the depth of this system contrasted with most of this decade and what we're used to as Reds fans lately is significantly different IMO. There's a good collection of baseball players here.

15fan
12-09-2008, 12:16 AM
Why do we need some cavalry is the question?

2008 MLB standings (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/standings)

The Reds finished 23.5 games back last season.

Only Baltimore (28.5), Oakland (24.5), and Seattle (39) finished further back in the AL. In the NL, only Washington (32.5) and Pittsburgh (30.5) finished further off the pace.

By that metric, the Reds finished further out of the race than 80% of all of the teams in MLB last season.

That tells me that the roster needs a little more than tweaking.

And with 0 options in the minors to fill any of the biggest needs at the major league level in 2009, I'm starting to understand how the Japanese must have felt when they were dug in at Iwo Jima and got a glimpse of the approaching American forces.

I'll also pose this question - If you were one of the 29 other GMs in MLB, how many guys in the Reds minor league system would you go out of your way to acquire and be willing to give up anything of significance (ie, a good defender up the middle or a legit ML arm) to do so?

dougdirt
12-09-2008, 12:34 AM
2008 MLB standings (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/standings)

The Reds finished 23.5 games back last season.

Only Baltimore (28.5), Oakland (24.5), and Seattle (39) finished further back in the AL. In the NL, only Washington (32.5) and Pittsburgh (30.5) finished further off the pace.

By that metric, the Reds finished further out of the race than 80% of all of the teams in MLB last season.

That tells me that the roster needs a little more than tweaking.

And with 0 options in the minors to fill any of the biggest needs at the major league level in 2009, I'm starting to understand how the Japanese must have felt when they were dug in at Iwo Jima and got a glimpse of the approaching American forces.

I'll also pose this question - If you were one of the 29 other GMs in MLB, how many guys in the Reds minor league system would you go out of your way to acquire and be willing to give up anything of significance (ie, a good defender up the middle or a legit ML arm) to do so?

Last years team and next years team aren't close to the same. Next year and going forward we aren't going to have Corey Patterson, Paul Bako or Josh Fogg. Next year we also get Jay Bruce, Joey Votto and Edwin Encarnacion closer to their prime years and Johnny Cueto with more experience as well as a fully healthy Aaron Harang.

And again, what are our biggest needs?
Catcher - Ryan Hanigan from the farm is there and we are looking at bringing in another one via trade currently.
Left Field - I still feel the Dye trade goes down, which is centered around Bailey from the farm.
Shortstop - We don't have anyone ready to step in there, but the Reds may not even be trying to go for someone either and at that point there isn't much the farm can help with. If they do want to go after a shortstop, they certainly can use the farm to get someone even if they pull off the trade for Dye.

Betterread
12-09-2008, 04:20 AM
And again, what are our biggest needs?
Catcher - Ryan Hanigan from the farm is there and we are looking at bringing in another one via trade currently.
Left Field - I still feel the Dye trade goes down, which is centered around Bailey from the farm.
Shortstop - We don't have anyone ready to step in there, but the Reds may not even be trying to go for someone either and at that point there isn't much the farm can help with. If they do want to go after a shortstop, they certainly can use the farm to get someone even if they pull off the trade for Dye.

When you lose 88 games, your needs are simple. Better pitching, better defense and better offense. I'd say that our biggest needs are a 5th starter, a consistent high OBP guy at the top of the order, a catcher and a CFer. I'm optimistic about the 5th starter options the Reds have, but pessimistic about the other 3 needs. I think the Reds need to pursue talent outside the organization for those 3.
Regarding your identified team needs - I am optimistic about LF.
Ryan Hanigan is not the answer. The Reds underestimate the awfulness of the defense on the left side of the infield. Its a big problem.

camisadelgolf
12-09-2008, 05:53 AM
Justin Reed does have the physical tools to play CF but you're opinon on Henry I don't quite understand. I have on at least 2 maybe 3 different occassions listed a scouting report on Henry via BA that says he has the tools & the aptitude to play CF as well, I don't know if you have seen that or not. The Reds not playing him in CF is a mystery too me.

I've seen those reports, too, but they're not exactly ringing endorsements. I've seen Henry play center field, and based purely on defense, I'd rather see Norris Hopper in center. You can put Henry in center, but I just don't think it's a good idea on a regular basis. If the Reds, for some reason, have players in the corners who cover a lot of ground, it might not be bad, but you're probably better off putting a better bat in right and Bruce in center. The fact that Henry can play center field without embarrassing himself makes him more versatile and valuable, but I think Reed has the skills to be a pure center fielder, which gives him a huge advantage in this aspect.


Reed does have more speed and power potential but Henry plays with more of each.

That's true, but if you'll forgive me nitpicking (which is appropriate since Henry and Reed are almost worth the same in terms of value as a prospect), Henry had 11 homeruns in 500 plate appearances in 2007, whereas Reed had 11 homeruns in 462 plate appearances. This is in addition to Henry being noticeably more polished and being two years older.


If Henry has the plate discipline advantage, how is this neither, it's Reed vs. Henry?

That was just a typo. Henry has a huge advantage here. :redface:


Again if this is a straight up comparison Henry played in AA, Reed in Low A. Henry very well could/should advance based on his play at this level, Reed not at all did he perform well enough to advance.

I expect the differences in their performances to differ for at least a couple years. I'm just speculating, but I think he's on the Drew Stubbs trail, and what I mean by that is that I think they're working with his plates discipline and his swing to get him to make more contact. Sean Henry, on the other hand, is already polished in that area, so he's kind of hit his ceiling already.


Fair enough Reed likely is the more talented of the 2 but I happen to think that Henry's talents are not as far away from Reed's as people think. I could be wrong but I would state that the BA article suggests that he has pretty good raw talent.

That's fair. If he could play center field or second base well, he'd shoot up my prospect rankings, but until then, he's no more than a fourth or fifth outfielder, which has value, but won't make much of an impact at the big league level.


I'd say Henry is the more talented of the 2 but that Heisey is more polished which results in better production because Heisey isn't completely devoid of talent himself. And if I'm right Henry's production as he moves up will improve as he continues to refine his game, Heisey's production isn't likely to improve much and maybe not even stay the same, except for maybe an increase in pop that a lot of prospects get at age 24. Oh yeah that was the other thing about these 2 Heisey did most of his damage as a 23 yr old in A+ whereas Henry did most of his as a 22 yr old in AA.

'Lacking tools' is a common misnomer for Chris Heisey. As you said, he's not devoid of talent, but when it comes to Heisey vs. Henry, based on talent alone, I'd take Heisey every day of the week. The age and level differences are worthy of note, but every player advances at different rates, and I don't think the pace of a player developing makes a big difference. That's why I'm not attacking Drew Stubbs' development all the time.


All in all Reed might have more talent but hasn't come close to putting it together, will he ever, I have my doubts. But if he does it better be this coming year and in a big way. But Henry has finally put it together and at higher levels which IMO is more important and what makes him more valuable. Heisey and Henry are somewhat close overall but I think there is reason to expect a little more out of Henry which again makes him more valuable, seeing as how both have played quite well to this point.

I have my doubts about Reed reaching his potential, too. What Henry has done to this point is certainly more impressive, and I completely understand someone being higher on Henry as a prospect, but my logic is basically this: fourth outfielders are a dime a dozen, and everyday centerfielders are very, very valuable. Reed obviously has less of a chance of reaching his potential, but I think our differences of opinion come from how we view the value of prospects and not from how we view Sean Henry and Justin Reed.

Mario-Rijo
12-09-2008, 03:48 PM
I've seen those reports, too, but they're not exactly ringing endorsements. I've seen Henry play center field, and based purely on defense, I'd rather see Norris Hopper in center. You can put Henry in center, but I just don't think it's a good idea on a regular basis. If the Reds, for some reason, have players in the corners who cover a lot of ground, it might not be bad, but you're probably better off putting a better bat in right and Bruce in center. The fact that Henry can play center field without embarrassing himself makes him more versatile and valuable, but I think Reed has the skills to be a pure center fielder, which gives him a huge advantage in this aspect.

I had no idea you have actually been able to put an eye on him. That certainly changes things, what is it exactly that would lead you to feel that Hopper makes a better CF? Is it Henry's talent or skill out there that makes you think he couldn't pull it off on a full time basis?


That's true, but if you'll forgive me nitpicking (which is appropriate since Henry and Reed are almost worth the same in terms of value as a prospect), Henry had 11 homeruns in 500 plate appearances in 2007, whereas Reed had 11 homeruns in 462 plate appearances. This is in addition to Henry being noticeably more polished and being two years older.

Well I feel Henry is far more valuable a prospect, however isn't this a direct contradiction to what you have been stating? I thought what you were saying is that Reed is a far more valuable prospect than Henry. BTW there really is no comparison to their bats in any way to this point. But I think you mean 2008 Henry had 11 HR in 500 PA's and Reed 11 HR in 460 PA's. Problem is Reed's Slg% was .383 and Henry's was .450. Which is aboout in line with their career lines in that dept.


I expect the differences in their performances to differ for at least a couple years. I'm just speculating, but I think he's on the Drew Stubbs trail, and what I mean by that is that I think they're working with his plates discipline and his swing to get him to make more contact. Sean Henry, on the other hand, is already polished in that area, so he's kind of hit his ceiling already.

Could be but I'm not so sure on either count.


That's fair. If he could play center field or second base well, he'd shoot up my prospect rankings, but until then, he's no more than a fourth or fifth outfielder, which has value, but won't make much of an impact at the big league level.

I would agree however a 4th or 5th OF has a lot more value than a guy who never makes it and at this point Reed is looking like the latter. You obviously feel different but there's no indication at all that he is likely to bust out.


'Lacking tools' is a common misnomer for Chris Heisey. As you said, he's not devoid of talent, but when it comes to Heisey vs. Henry, based on talent alone, I'd take Heisey every day of the week. The age and level differences are worthy of note, but every player advances at different rates, and I don't think the pace of a player developing makes a big difference. That's why I'm not attacking Drew Stubbs' development all the time.

I would agree that different players advance differently somewhat but they usually are almost always better early on and level off as they go up the ladder. Which isn't the case with Henry who had he played up to his ability early on would have likely had some outstanding #'s looking at what he is doing right now. That said I do see these 2 roughly the same players overall but I'd give the edge in raw talent to Henry. IF Henry polishes up his game though I think there's a decent chance he could be a starting player, Heisey I have seen play and I would say he's a definite bench player on a good team albeit a darn good 4th/5th OF. But I don't really have too much of an issue with these 2 being flip flopped, it's a close call in terms of value currently.


I have my doubts about Reed reaching his potential, too. What Henry has done to this point is certainly more impressive, and I completely understand someone being higher on Henry as a prospect, but my logic is basically this: fourth outfielders are a dime a dozen, and everyday centerfielders are very, very valuable. Reed obviously has less of a chance of reaching his potential, but I think our differences of opinion come from how we view the value of prospects and not from how we view Sean Henry and Justin Reed.

I definitely would view a potential starting CF as more valuable but at this point I just feel like the writing is on the wall for one Mr. Reed unless he has it in him to make drastic changes to his approach to the game. Which is obviously where we part ways here. It's just like Yorman and Duran they are at this point more likely to pull a Reed than they are to have a great minor league career let alone a major league one. But I put them both ahead of Reed because they do still have potential whereas Reeds hourglass has just about run it's course. But if Reed happens to prove me wrong I'll give you major kudos for seeing something that I sure don't.