PDA

View Full Version : Which ten prospects would you want



redhawk61
02-20-2009, 11:38 AM
Which list would you choose?

From BA's list this years 11-20:
11. Daryl Thompson
12. Chris Dickerson
13. Jordan Smith
14. Josh Roenicke
15. Zach Stewart
16. Ryan Hanigan
17. Ramon Ramirez
18. Matt Maloney
19. Zach Cozart
20. Juan Carlos Sulbaran

or 2004 1-10:
1. Ryan Wagner
2. Edwin Encarnacion
3. Brandon Claussen,
4. Dustin Moseley
5. Joey Votto
6. Phil Dumatrait
7. Stephen Smitherman
8. Tyler Pelland
9. Chris Gruler
10. Ty Howington
When answering, try to do so by thinking of the 2004 group as if it is 2004, in that you have no clue how they managed since then, just what you thought of them as prospects.

camisadelgolf
02-20-2009, 03:21 PM
Great thread imo. Tbh, I'd go with the 2004 group but not by a long shot.

Thompson < Wagner (potential #3 starter with shoulder surgery vs. potential closer)
Dickerson < Encarnacion (#4 OF vs. starting 3B)
Smith < Claussen (fairly raw pitcher vs. guy who projects as #2 starter)
Roenicke = Moseley (I'm not yet sold on Roenicke, but I always knew Moseley could never be more than a #4 starter)
Stewart < Votto (even after Votto struggled, I still loved his potential)
Hanigan < Dumatrait (backup catcher vs. left-handed starter with some upside)
Ramirez > Smitherman (Smitherman was always sign as a AAAA player)
Maloney > Pelland (I was a big Pelland fan, but why would pick Pelland over Maloney?)
Cozart > Gruler (the writing was already on the wall for Gruler)
Sulbaran > Howington (once again, Howington was pretty much being written off)

This goes to show how great the Reds' depth is at the moment. If the Reds managed to (sometimes) be competitive with such few resources in the past, it will be interesting to see what they can do when they actually have home-grown talent.

HokieRed
02-20-2009, 09:36 PM
I'd take the 2004. I followed EE's numbers pretty closely in the minors beginning when he came over from the Rangers. Those numbers always indicated he would be a major league hitter. I also thought there was plenty of reason to like Votto, though it was only in 2006 (IIRC) that it became clear we really had something in Votto. But I liked EE then much better than anybody on today's 11-20, which is not to say there's no major league help on that 11-20 list. There is, but it will be interesting to see if any player in that group is ever of the value of EE or Votto. I should add I saw EE in spring training in 2004 and liked the way he hit the ball, though the throwing problem was very obvious; also say Claussen pitch and was unimpressed--velocity seemed just not to be there and the breaking pitches were just not very sharp at all. So his being our 3rd prospect was a real indication of how thin we were.

JayBruceFan
02-21-2009, 01:34 AM
2004 because of the better position player prospects

kaldaniels
02-22-2009, 05:21 PM
Votto was on the radar back in 2004...that causes a double-take. Sure, it's nice when prospects rocket their way up to the bigs and from there have a sucessful career. But Votto has been an absolute case-study on how to level-by-level slowly work your way up to the bigs. Each year he made strides and I don't for once remember thinking Votto was regressing any of the past 5 years. What a solid player.

camisadelgolf
02-22-2009, 05:25 PM
Votto took a big step back in 2005, and people were very doubtful of his chances of being a quality big leaguer. Votto basically chalked up the struggles to the take-the-first-pitch rule that was implemented through the Reds' minor league affiliates. After that experiment, though, he has been lights out.

kaldaniels
02-22-2009, 06:33 PM
Votto took a big step back in 2005, and people were very doubtful of his chances of being a quality big leaguer. Votto basically chalked up the struggles to the take-the-first-pitch rule that was implemented through the Reds' minor league affiliates. After that experiment, though, he has been lights out.

Even with his struggles in 2005, I never was freaking out that he wouldn't cut it...just seemed to be a guy struggling to catch up at the next level....thats not my point though...point is it is amazing how "systematically" he rose through the ranks of the minors. 6 levels in 5 years...with his time in each level just about equal for all intended purposes. I'm not doubting there aren't others like him, but I'd be interested to see if anyone can pull up a similar player who progressed through all 5 levels in such fashion. Call it methodical or just a statistical coincidence...but his progression has been rather unique if you ask me.

bucksfan2
02-23-2009, 12:45 PM
Votto took a big step back in 2005, and people were very doubtful of his chances of being a quality big leaguer. Votto basically chalked up the struggles to the take-the-first-pitch rule that was implemented through the Reds' minor league affiliates. After that experiment, though, he has been lights out.

IIRC Votto's step back had to do with DanO's requirement for players to take the first strike. He had an off season but then continued to surprise afterward.

Edwin was the jewel of the Reds farm system for a couple of years. There was a whole lot of hope on his shoulders as he worked his way up through the organization and into the bigs. Needless to say he is still a work in progress.

I would take 11-20 now as opposed 1-10 in 2004. The Reds system under Bowden seemed to be more smoke and mirrors than actual depth. Wagner may have had potential but was a rush job. Claussen was highly touted because he was a Yankee and was lacking in substance. Without all the hype Claussen = Maloney. Today's farm system has much more depth and substance than it has in a while. If the Reds had signed Y. Rodriguez and Juan Duran back in 2004 they probably would have been top 5 prospects.

OnBaseMachine
02-23-2009, 12:55 PM
IIRC Votto's step back had to do with DanO's requirement for players to take the first strike. He had an off season but then continued to surprise afterward.


Yep. That, coupled with him playing in the pitcher friendly FSL is a recipe for a down season.

I like the 11-20 list, but if I had to choose one I'd take the 2004 group. I was always very high on Votto and Encarnacion. I thought Claussen would develop into a solid starter and I thought Ryan Wagner had a chance to be a great closer. Unfortunately the league caught up to his slider and he never adjusted.

But as I said, I'm pretty high on the 11-20 list too but I'd take the 2004 list because of Joey Votto and Edwin Encarnacion.

Scrap Irony
02-23-2009, 02:59 PM
The main problem with the 2004 group is the huge drop-off after Votto. Prospects flame out all the time; the Red system is a study in flame-outs. Claussen never developed as expected. Neither did Wagner. Moseley, Pelland, Gruler, and Howington all suffered major injuries that assisted in derailing promising beginnings.

Still, I'd take a group that has Votto and EdE in it over the possible depth this season. Votto appears to be a stud and Encarnacion still has a good chance to be one as well. Both could OPS 900 in 2009 and that doesn't happen all that often in Redland.

Of the 11-20 2008 list, only Dickerson and Sulbaran have top-end talent. More of the 08 squad would likely be in the majors, but none of them look like solid, above average starters.

camisadelgolf
02-23-2009, 03:49 PM
Did you read my post? :lol:

Votto took a big step back in 2005, and people were very doubtful of his chances of being a quality big leaguer. Votto basically chalked up the struggles to the take-the-first-pitch rule that was implemented through the Reds' minor league affiliates. After that experiment, though, he has been lights out.

IIRC Votto's step back had to do with DanO's requirement for players to take the first strike. He had an off season but then continued to surprise afterward . . .

camisadelgolf
02-23-2009, 03:52 PM
The thing I love about having depth is that occasionally, there's a guy who develops a new pitch, more command, more plate discipline, etc. Aaron Harang was considered a #5 starter for most of his years as a prospect, but the light turned on for him, resulting in him being one of the premier starters of the NL for a few years (and possibly longer). During the Bowden years, a jump like that would have made a non-prospect into a fringe prospect.

redhawk61
02-23-2009, 06:07 PM
Of the 11-20 2008 list, only Dickerson and Sulbaran have top-end talent. More of the 08 squad would likely be in the majors, but none of them look like solid, above average starters.

I'd have to disagree here. Stewart has, IMO, top end closer talent, plus plus fastball 95-98 with plus movement, also a average to plus slider, with command with both the fastball and slider. Stewart will be CoCo's replacement, and I have a feeling he will one day be one of the most dominate closers in the game

Thompson has #3 starter stuff, if the shoulder remains healthy, and if he moves to the pen, would be very good in the setup role.

Now I'll give you that those two more than likely are both relievers, which have less of an impact than others, but to say Dickerson and Sulbaran are the only two capable of being solid to above average starters out of this group is a little off IMO.

Kingspoint
02-23-2009, 06:23 PM
As you said to think of the group back in 2004, I'd take the 2004 group in a landslide. Looking at it now, Votto and EE still make it very close, but I like the new group better as I have to think that Thompson, Roenicke, Ramirez, Dickerson and Stewart will end up contributing more overall than the other group. EE and Votto though could blow that other group away this year. I'm a huge Daryl Thompson fan though and think that he'll eventually reach the All-Star game over the next 5 years. and to get an All-Star pitcher from the REDS' minor leagues is so rare.