PDA

View Full Version : Top Ten Starting Pitching Prospects



mace
05-01-2009, 03:10 PM
What say you?

I guess I'd arbitrarily base this on the likelihood to win, say, 50-100 games in the big leagues, regardless of current readiness.

My uneducated, all-but-random guess, at the moment:

1. Bailey
2. Lotzkar
3. Sulbaran
4. Wood
5. Thompson
6. Fairel
7. Horst
8. Maloney
9. Hildenbrandt
10. Buck

Also considered: Guillon, Lecure, Snowden, Carroll, Ramirez, Viola (who apparently is no longer a starter but maybe should be) and Stewart (who is currently a starter but apparently shouldn't be)

schmidty622
05-01-2009, 03:28 PM
Does Bailey still have prospect status in terms of his service time? Basically, would he still be eligible for rookie of the year consideration?

lollipopcurve
05-01-2009, 03:33 PM
Like it. 4 lefties in the top 10 -- there's something new.

My general take is that apart from the "special" guys a more advanced pitcher is a better prospect than a less advanced one. So:

1. Bailey
2. Sulbaran (looks pretty special to me)
3. Lecure
4. Buck
5. Ramirez (still like him, though he's been up and down as a minor leaguer)
6. Maloney
7. Lotzkar
8. Wood
9. Fairel
10. Ravin

Could be there next: Horst, Castro, Partch
Not healthy enough: Thompson (also why Lotzkar is at #7)

Soon to be top 3, at least: 09 first-round draft choice

dougdirt
05-01-2009, 03:34 PM
Bailey isn't a prospect and not ROY eligible.

schmidty622
05-01-2009, 03:36 PM
Bailey isn't a prospect and not ROY eligible.

That's what I thought, and it makes the organizational pitching depth look a bit weaker.

dougdirt
05-01-2009, 03:37 PM
I will go with 10 guys that I won't put in order for right now because I am not sure where everyone is health wise.

Juan Carlos Sulbaran
Matt Maloney
Jordan Smith
Daryl Thompson
Kyle Lotzkar
Dallas Buck
Travis Wood
Jeremy Horst
Evan Hildenbrandt
Ramon Ramirez

JaxRed
05-01-2009, 03:48 PM
He may not be ROY eligible, but he's in the minors with essentially no major league service time, so certainly should be on our prospect lists.

mace
05-01-2009, 03:53 PM
Like it. 4 lefties in the top 10 -- there's something new.

My general take is that apart from the "special" guys a more advanced pitcher is a better prospect than a less advanced one.


I'd agree with that. The less-advanced guy still has to get to the point where the more-advanced guy already is.

I also agree that relative health plays a huge part in this. For somebody like Lotzkar, it's the difference between the top of the list and the bottom.

As to Bailey's prospect status . . . Whether or not he's an "official" prospect, he started the season in the minor leagues. For these purposes, I consider him to be a minor-leaguer whom the Reds are still trying to develop into a major-leaguer. That, to me, is a "prospect."

I'm probably giving in too quickly on Ramirez. A month ago, based on his call-up last year, I'd have had him in the top five. I couldn't believe that he wasn't given a fair shot to make the Reds' rotation in the spring. But something seems to have compromised him between September and now.

Lastly, I inadvertently left out Jordan Smith. Should have included him in the "consideration" portion, if not the bottom five. (Although he hasn't shown it so far this season.)

SMcGavin
05-01-2009, 03:56 PM
Most likely to win 50-100 games in the bigs? Maloney. Highest ceilings? Lotzkar and Bailey.

dougdirt
05-01-2009, 03:56 PM
He may not be ROY eligible, but he's in the minors with essentially no major league service time, so certainly should be on our prospect lists.

In baseball terms, prospect means ROY eligible, with less than 150 AB's and less than 50MLB ip. If its a minor league starting pitcher list, then sure. But if its a prospect list, then Bailey just doesn't meet the requirements.

Bumstead
05-01-2009, 04:25 PM
True, if you are writing a book or work for a prospect website. If you are just a bunch of Reds fans rating your 'up-and-coming' starting pitchers which you are calling prospects (because they are) then Bailey should count. He's not Freddie Garcia in the minors, he's 22 and can still be considered a prospect on this forum...in my opinion...otherwise, we are pretty thin at future starting pitchers in the organization...:D

Who cares about ROY anyway? Luckily for the Reds Volquez and Cueto are both young pitchers that are already up.

Bum

dougdirt
05-01-2009, 04:31 PM
True, if you are writing a book or work for a prospect website. If you are just a bunch of Reds fans rating your 'up-and-coming' starting pitchers which you are calling prospects (because they are) then Bailey should count. He's not Freddie Garcia in the minors, he's 22 and can still be considered a prospect on this forum...in my opinion...otherwise, we are pretty thin at future starting pitchers in the organization...:D

Who cares about ROY anyway? Luckily for the Reds Volquez and Cueto are both young pitchers that are already up.

Bum
Ultimately it just comes down to how the word is defined in baseball circles. Someone is either a prospect or they aren't because the word has a set definition.

Bumstead
05-01-2009, 04:38 PM
Amongst baseball writers and purists...not fans. Why quibble? :confused:

*BaseClogger*
05-01-2009, 04:44 PM
The person quibbling is the one who wants to change the definition of a word...

mace
05-01-2009, 04:50 PM
Most likely to win 50-100 games in the bigs? Maloney. Highest ceilings? Lotzkar and Bailey.

That's a good and fair distinction, and it's what makes this a thorny exercise. But yeah, it was based on the former. And given that, I probably should have ranked Maloney higher. But it's all so fleeting. If Ramirez puts together three good outings in a row, he's suddenly in the same category.

mace
05-01-2009, 04:56 PM
Ultimately it just comes down to how the word is defined in baseball circles. Someone is either a prospect or they aren't because the word has a set definition.

Here's the problem. The thread could be renamed "Top Ten Starting Pitchers in the Reds' Farm System," but that doesn't speak to their major-league potential, which is what we care about. The term for that is "prospect." Can we just say that, for the sake of convenience, and in the spirit of the discussion, we're taking liberties with the definition just a tad?

lollipopcurve
05-01-2009, 05:00 PM
Meanwhile......

Seems like Jordan Smith has not been taking his regular turn in Carolina. Anyone know why?

BuckeyeRedleg
05-01-2009, 05:01 PM
Here's the problem. The thread could be renamed "Top Ten Starting Pitchers in the Reds' Farm System," but that doesn't speak to their major-league potential, which is what we care about. The term for that is "prospect." Can we just say that, for the sake of convenience, and in the spirit of the discussion, we're taking liberties with the definition just a tad?

Perfectly acceptable to me. Good list.

Bumstead
05-01-2009, 05:01 PM
The person quibbling is the one who wants to change the definition of a word...

Oh no. Reinforcements have been brought in...:rolleyes: I'm sure Doug can handle it. It's my opinion; I don't have to agree to the elitist definition of the word if I choose not to. When I read Baseball America or Sickels or even Doug's site I know what they mean by prospects. I think the definition should be looser in regards to this thread. Bailey is one of the top 10 PROSPECTS for future starting pitchers that the Reds have.

You have one of my favorite 'nicks' by the way. Probably 2nd to Eric The Red.

Bum

camisadelgolf
05-01-2009, 05:15 PM
Different baseball publications have their own definition of 'prospect'. If you go by the definition of 'prospect' from a dictionary, Homer Bailey is a prospect in the sense that he has the potential to help the Reds at the Major League level in the future. However, he is not a rookie. If you want to say that disqualifies him from being a prospect, that's up to you, but what good does it do to criticize others for where they draw the line?

Bumstead
05-01-2009, 05:29 PM
I still think Bailey is the Reds #1 Starting Pitching PROSPECT; if you disagree, that's up to you. But, I do understand why he is not listed in Baseball America's or Sickel's 'prospect' books.

Bum

camisadelgolf
05-01-2009, 05:35 PM
I'm done after this, but show me where I criticized Doug or anyone if you are referring to me. I disagreed. It's a forum; it's purpose is to express one's opinions...:rolleyes:
Are you talking to me? If anything, I was defending you.

Bumstead
05-01-2009, 05:38 PM
hehe. Sorry, misunderstood.

dougdirt
05-01-2009, 05:41 PM
Oh no. Reinforcements have been brought in...:rolleyes: I'm sure Doug can handle it. It's my opinion; I don't have to agree to the elitist definition of the word if I choose not to. When I read Baseball America or Sickels or even Doug's site I know what they mean by prospects. I think the definition should be looser in regards to this thread. Bailey is one of the top 10 PROSPECTS for future starting pitchers that the Reds have.

You have one of my favorite 'nicks' by the way. Probably 2nd to Eric The Red.

Bum

Sure, you don't have to agree to the definition thats held up by all major minor league publications who use the same rules for applying the term prospect to a baseball player if you don't want to. However it does get a bit confusing when the definition of a term is not used by all, because then we have 7 guys saying Homer Bailey is there and 25 others without him on their list when all 32 people would likely agree he is one of the top 10 arms in the organization under the age of 25, it just happens that he doesn't qualify as a 'prospect' anymore because he has over 50 innings in the major leagues.

I see where you are coming from, but the term prospect in baseball means something a little different than a prospect stock.

mace
05-01-2009, 05:58 PM
OK, to recap (so we can move on): This being an unofficial, fan-friendly thread, we'll temporarily disregard the specific industry definition for the term "prospect" and include Homer Bailey among our candidates for the list in question.

redsof72
05-02-2009, 02:44 PM
Zach Stewart is a starter right now and for me, he belongs at the top of the list. Matt Fairel might surprise some people. He came out after his sophomore season. He really should be viewed as a 4th-5th round pick. Lets see how he does in his next couple of starts. Could see him in Sarasota before long.

There has been debate here, but I maintain that Stewart is a better prospect than Lotzkar. I am anxious to see Lotzkar when he starts pitching in games shortly to see how much better he looks than last year.

Ravin is the wildcard. He could shoot up the list or fall out totally.

dougdirt
05-02-2009, 02:46 PM
Zach Stewart is a starter right now and for me, he belongs at the top of the list. Matt Fairel might surprise some people. He came out after his sophomore season. He really should be viewed as a 4th-5th round pick. Lets see how he does in his next couple of starts. Could see him in Sarasota before long.

There has been debate here, but I maintain that Stewart is a better prospect than Lotzkar. I am anxious to see Lotzkar when he starts pitching in games shortly to see how much better he looks than last year.

Ravin is the wildcard. He could shoot up the list or fall out totally.

Stewart is starting, but the Reds are only starting him to help develop his offspeed stuff faster... so I don't really consider him as a starter.

mth123
05-02-2009, 03:06 PM
I don't count Stewart as a starter, but I do count Bailey. I only think there are 5 guys who may really be of help down the road. Maybe Wood can come on some more, but I'm still wary of him.

1. Bailey
2. Lotzkar
3. Fairel
4. Buck
5. Sulbarren
6. Smith
7. Horst
8. Hildenbrandt
9. Wood (Moving up)
10. Webb


Maloney, Ramirez, and maybe Lecure may be more valuable in trade and should be dangled.
Thompson, Viola and Jukich are probably relievers with Thompson and Viola possibly impact guys in the pen.

dougdirt
05-02-2009, 03:11 PM
No Jordan Smith MTH?

mth123
05-02-2009, 03:12 PM
No Jordan Smith MTH?

DOH!!!! I knew I was forgetting some one. I'd put him 6th and push everyone down one.

Betterread
05-03-2009, 12:30 PM
Doug is right. Bailey is not a prospect. If you want a list of young Reds starting pitchers under 25 or something like that then that's a different list.
1. Lotzkar
2. Maloney
3. Smith
4. Sulbaran
5. Buck
6. Fairel
7. Hildenbrandt
8. Wood
9. LeCure
10. ---(really should be no-one - we barely have 5 starting pitching prospects) Avery

camisadelgolf
05-03-2009, 01:27 PM
Without giving it too much thought, here's my list, which features a lot of future relievers:
1. Kyle Lotzkar
2. Dallas Buck
3. Daryl Thompson
4. Zach Stewart
5. Juan Carlos Sulbaran
6. Jordan Smith
7. Travis Wood
8. Jeremy Horst
9. Matt Fairel
10. Evan Hildenbrandt

11. Shea Snowden
12. Ramon Ramirez
13. Sam LeCure
14. Matt Maloney
15. Scott Carroll

Mario-Rijo
05-04-2009, 01:40 AM
I personally believe that just because he's no longer eligible to win a ROY award it shouldn't take away from Homer being a prospective member of a future staff which is all we are talking about. But to play along I'll just say if I were to include him he would be at the top or near it probably #1 maybe 2 after this season is over if he isn't up yet.

I think I am only gonna list those who I think will actually be starters.

#1 - Lotzkar
#2 - Buck
#3 - Sulbaran
#4 - Maloney
#5 - J. Smith
#6 - Horst
#7 - Fairel
#8 - Hildenbrandt
#9 - Shunick
#10 - Castro

Thompson, Stewart and Wood some of my favorite arms to me look to be better bullpen guys. Not a big believer in LeCure, Webb and to a lesser extent Bowman. But I'll say pitching is a much tougher position for me to get a handle on, I need to see more of them than hitters to get a feel.

Bumstead
05-04-2009, 12:16 PM
Here are mine:

1. Bailey
2. Lotzkar
3. Buck
4. Wood
5. Sulbaran
6. Smith

After those guys it seems like a reach to me.

Bum

RED VAN HOT
05-06-2009, 03:26 PM
Can anyone comment on the difference in Wood this year? I am having trouble making sense of this stats. He seems to be difficult to hit, yet his BB's are at 6/9 and his K's are a little over 5/9. Early in his career he was a strikeout pitcher. My guess is that he is attempting to work lower in the strike zone and for the near term, missing more often. Perhaps he is on the way to being a Glavine type of pitcher.

camisadelgolf
05-06-2009, 05:01 PM
Can anyone comment on the difference in Wood this year? I am having trouble making sense of this stats. He seems to be difficult to hit, yet his BB's are at 6/9 and his K's are a little over 5/9. Early in his career he was a strikeout pitcher. My guess is that he is attempting to work lower in the strike zone and for the near term, missing more often. Perhaps he is on the way to being a Glavine type of pitcher.
That reminds me a lot of Steve Avery in 1999. He was somewhat effective by flat-out refusing to throw strikes.

lollipopcurve
05-07-2009, 02:37 PM
Can anyone comment on the difference in Wood this year? I am having trouble making sense of this stats. He seems to be difficult to hit, yet his BB's are at 6/9 and his K's are a little over 5/9. Early in his career he was a strikeout pitcher. My guess is that he is attempting to work lower in the strike zone and for the near term, missing more often. Perhaps he is on the way to being a Glavine type of pitcher.

I have the same question. Doing what he's doing in AA is worthy of notice, for sure. He's a real interesting case -- still very young (22 all year) and with a real weapon (great changeup). At the same time, 2 major red flags -- injury history and spotty control. Lotta ways he could go, but, if he does turn into a major league pitcher, I think it's going to take a while yet. They need to get him on the 40-man next year (if he stays healthy) and be patient with him.

Bumstead
05-07-2009, 02:44 PM
4 walks in 6IP in his last outing, yet he only allowed 3 hits and 1 run; finally got his first win. Interesting: he would probably be projected to flame out based on his control and his K/BB ratio but his H/IP ratio is really good. I think he's someone to keep an eye on.

Bum

lollipopcurve
05-07-2009, 03:22 PM
I think he's someone to keep an eye on.

No doubt he is. When he first turned pro, he was dominant. His changeup was considered among the best in minor league baseball. The question has been the curve -- could he develop it into a usable pitch? I've seen nothing in the last year or so on him, and he fell completely out of BA's top 30 Reds prospects (he had been top 10 more than once), probably due mostly to injury concerns.

This is definitely someone we need an update on (and I think we've got a poster or two out there who are close to his situation).

Bumstead
05-07-2009, 03:35 PM
We definitely have posters that know more about it than I do. Those posters didn't respond to my previous post regarding Wood either...I have to say that I was pretty surprised when he wasn't in the top 30 prospects according Baseball America.

Bum

camisadelgolf
05-07-2009, 04:50 PM
The last I heard, Wood had lost some velocity on his fastball, which wasn't all that special to begin with. I hate to be pessimistic, but his ERA thus far may be a mirage, especially when you consider that he's walking more batters than he's striking out. I agree that he's someone to keep an eye on, but I'm not nearly as excited about him as I was a few years ago.

Superdude
05-07-2009, 06:36 PM
I think he was throwing 90-95 in his first season. It sounds like the changeup is his only real strikeout weapon now.

Bumstead
05-07-2009, 06:44 PM
Does anyone know what his current velocity is on his fastball? Is he still working to regain velocity? Those things would be helpful to know.

Thanks

Bum

Benihana
05-08-2009, 12:48 AM
Have Real Potential
1. Bailey
2. Stewart
3. Lotzkar
4. Sulbaran

Could Be Serviceable
5. Wood
(tie) Buck
(tie) Thompson
(tie) Maloney

mace
05-08-2009, 01:15 AM
To me, the guy who keeps being sold short (not by everybody, mind you) is Horst. I mean, what's not to like? 6-4 lefty, 23 years old (slightly old for High-A, maybe, but not much). Pitched well at Billings his first year (51 K in 39.2 IP). Dominated the Midwest League the last month or more of last year (2.38 ERA, 74 H and 110 K in 102 IP, very clutch in the playoffs), and this year has a 2.00 ERA over his first five starts. Some people have been saying that the system has only a handful of genuine pitching prospects, and they simply dismiss a guy like Horst. What am I missing?

M2
05-08-2009, 10:55 AM
Have Real Potential
1. Bailey
2. Stewart
3. Lotzkar
4. Sulbaran

Could Be Serviceable
5. Wood
(tie) Buck
(tie) Thompson
(tie) Maloney

That's probably a more organized way of thinking about it.

Then it could be compared to lists from other organizations.

lollipopcurve
05-08-2009, 11:06 AM
Could Be Serviceable
5. Wood
(tie) Buck
(tie) Thompson
(tie) Maloney

Lecure and Ramirez should be here.

dougdirt
05-08-2009, 12:20 PM
To me, the guy who keeps being sold short (not by everybody, mind you) is Horst. I mean, what's not to like? 6-4 lefty, 23 years old (slightly old for High-A, maybe, but not much). Pitched well at Billings his first year (51 K in 39.2 IP). Dominated the Midwest League the last month or more of last year (2.38 ERA, 74 H and 110 K in 102 IP, very clutch in the playoffs), and this year has a 2.00 ERA over his first five starts. Some people have been saying that the system has only a handful of genuine pitching prospects, and they simply dismiss a guy like Horst. What am I missing?

Not sure.... I like Horst. He isn't the best guy ever, but he has some good stuff he is working with. He has good size, a solid repertoire, has shown good numbers and is a smart pitcher. At the very least he is a guy with solid potential, but maybe lacking that #1/2 ceiling.