PDA

View Full Version : Leading up to the Draft



Benihana
05-09-2009, 04:46 PM
The Draft is one month away, and there is still a fair amount of baseball to play. How would your wish list stack up at this point?

In the first round, I would love to have Grant Green, and it's looking more and more likely by the day that he could be available when the Reds pick. An advanced true SS prospect is exactly what this organization could use.

In the supplemental and second round, here are a few names that interest me:

Tony Sanchez C
Luke Bailey C
Max Stassi C
Austin Maddox C
Jiovanni Mier SS
Matt Davidson 3B
Mike Trout OF
Everett Williams OF
James Paxton LHP
Tyler Skaggs LHP
Rex Brothers LHP

Anybody have any thoughts on these guys or other guys you'd like to see the Reds target?

icehole3
05-09-2009, 06:30 PM
I would basically like for them to draft 5 starting pitchers with the first 5 picks, thats my wish.

cincyinco
05-09-2009, 06:57 PM
I would basically like for them to draft 5 starting pitchers with the first 5 picks, thats my wish.

That's your wish every year, and every year we have a discussion of why this is not a sound philosophy.

BPA.

Period.

Every time.

Playing hypotheticals here, why would you want the reds to pass on an elite talent in a draft like a young griffey Jr. If it means taking a lesser starting pitcher to adhere to your wish?

If a pitcher is the BPA, all five times, so be it. But that's not likely.

dougdirt
05-09-2009, 07:05 PM
I want the best guy on the board at every pick (assuming we can sign them of course). I am not sold on a few guys, but the Reds have better scouts than I am a scout, so I will trust them. The guys in charge seem to be doing a fine job, so I am not going to complain much if they take one of the guys I am not so sold on.

Grande Donkey
05-09-2009, 07:29 PM
I want the best guy on the board at every pick (assuming we can sign them of course). I am not sold on a few guys, but the Reds have better scouts than I am a scout, so I will trust them. The guys in charge seem to be doing a fine job, so I am not going to complain much if they take one of the guys I am not so sold on.

You got any idea or preference on who the Reds will take?

icehole3
05-09-2009, 08:10 PM
That's your wish every year, and every year we have a discussion of why this is not a sound philosophy.

BPA.

Period.

Every time.

Playing hypotheticals here, why would you want the reds to pass on an elite talent in a draft like a young griffey Jr. If it means taking a lesser starting pitcher to adhere to your wish?

If a pitcher is the BPA, all five times, so be it. But that's not likely.


Because pitching is everything in baseball period, you can have your best player available, I think we need a lot more pitching, we need some guys who can throw in the upper 90's too.

nate
05-09-2009, 08:15 PM
Because pitching is everything in baseball period,

No, it isn't. Offense and defense are big parts of the game too.


we need some guys who can throw in the upper 90's too.

Why?

11larkin11
05-09-2009, 08:40 PM
I'm intrigued by Matzek and Purke, although I still like Gibson, Tate, Green, and Ackley

Orenda
05-09-2009, 08:40 PM
I understand taking the bpa, but there are times when it makes sense to select the next best bpa, if you are already stacked at a certain position. For example I don't imagine that the Reds will pick a first baseman with their number 1 pick this year even if that player is the highest rated on their board.

HokieRed
05-09-2009, 08:51 PM
BPA, and I'd guess from last year's pick that that is the reigning philosophy in current FO. I think the important thing is to get a major league player in the first round--I'd say that that's one thing the last three GM's have shown themselves to be much better at than the regime of Jimbo. With the exception of Mesoraco, who may still very well pan out, I think we've gotten four guys in the last five drafts who will have good to very good major league careers. And, IMO, that's the way the focus needs to stay.

icehole3
05-09-2009, 09:13 PM
No, it isn't. Offense and defense are big parts of the game too.



Why?

why not

nate
05-09-2009, 09:25 PM
why not

Well, usually when one makes an assertion, they have a reason for doing so. Since you did so with such conviction and panache, I figured explaining the rationale for your boldness would be simply produced.

As for "why not," the reason is simple. I'd prefer a pitcher who's primary skill is "pitching well" rather than one who's primary skill is "throwing hard."

BuckeyeRedleg
05-09-2009, 11:47 PM
Anyone know how Grant Green stacks up against the top college SS from last year's draft, Gordon Beckham?

If they were coming out the same year is one head and shoulders above the other?

Scrap Irony
05-10-2009, 12:31 AM
Defensively, Green's much better. There aren't as many questions about his glove and his arm is solid as well. His range is good, too, though some question his work ethic on the field.

Offensively, Green had a great Cape Cod league, but struggled early in the season at USC. He earned the Robert A. McNeece Outstanding Pro Prospect Award as the league's top pro prospect and placed top five in most of the offensive statistics. He strikes out too much and doesn't walk enough to suit me.

Overall, he has some questions, but all five tools. I could see Reynolds and the Reds gambling that he finds some more motivation in Dayton. I'd be thrilled with his talent.

I could also see the Reds skip over him in order to grab a legitimate arm or catching prospect. I'd love to see Matsek fall (and think he may). The LH arm from Kentucky is a Reynolds' type pick, too, but he just doesn't have the supreme numbers to take so early.

The supplimental pick is the most interesting, I think. I'd go HS catcher (or Josh Phegley, if still available)-- the most interesting, to me, being Austin Maddox. There are questions about his glove, but his power and quick bat look too good to pass up. At least to me.

LoganBuck
05-10-2009, 12:34 AM
Defensively, Green's much better. There aren't as many questions about his glove and his arm is solid as well. His range is good, too, though some question his work ethic on the field.

Offensively, Green had a great Cape Cod league, but struggled early in the season at USC. He earned the Robert A. McNeece Outstanding Pro Prospect Award as the league's top pro prospect and placed top five in most of the offensive statistics. He strikes out too much and doesn't walk enough to suit me.

Overall, he has some questions, but all five tools. I could see Reynolds and the Reds gambling that he finds some more motivation in Dayton. I'd be thrilled with his talent.

I could also see the Reds skip over him in order to grab a legitimate arm or catching prospect. I'd love to see Matsek fall (and think he may). The LH arm from Kentucky is a Reynolds' type pick, too, but he just doesn't have the supreme numbers to take so early.

The supplimental pick is the most interesting, I think. I'd go HS catcher (or Josh Phegley, if still available)-- the most interesting, to me, being Austin Maddox. There are questions about his glove, but his power and quick bat look too good to pass up. At least to me.

LH from Kentucky is a Boras guy. I don't think the Reds are going to take any of his kids.

Superdude
05-10-2009, 12:44 AM
the "BPA vs. SP every round" argument just never gets old

fearofpopvol1
05-10-2009, 03:33 AM
Best player available...bottom line. You can always trade that player later if their position doesn't fit the team to address another need. Or you can trade the current player in that position for another need.

I just hope it's a good one. Next year, the Reds probably won't be picking as high as they will be this year...so it'd be nice to really try to nab another impact player.

cincyinco
05-10-2009, 04:03 AM
Because pitching is everything in baseball period, you can have your best player available, I think we need a lot more pitching, we need some guys who can throw in the upper 90's too.

Have you watched the same reds team I have this year. Pitching is gold, but you have to be able to plate runs too. The reds sure could use a big bat in the upper levels, a cheap, productive, elite bat.

I mean no offense ice, but your wish to take 5 pitchers and the reason behind it just seem short sighted.

Draft the best player available. The rest of that stuff - I.e. Need at the major league level - will work itself out, via promotion, cuts, or trades.

icehole3
05-10-2009, 08:07 AM
Well, usually when one makes an assertion, they have a reason for doing so. Since you did so with such conviction and panache, I figured explaining the rationale for your boldness would be simply produced.

As for "why not," the reason is simple. I'd prefer a pitcher who's primary skill is "pitching well" rather than one who's primary skill is "throwing hard."

Since pitching is the key to winning baseball and you cant teach throwing 100 mph thats why I said that, I thought that would be very obvious to guys who follow baseball like you guys do, you can teach guys how to pitch, we have coaches who can teach these guys off speed stuff, so thats why I said with conviction why not. Thats my thinking and its hard for me to change that, we can get some hitters later, I will budge when there's a bonifide plus plus power hitter like Alonso, other than that I want hard throwing pitchers.

icehole3
05-10-2009, 08:10 AM
Have you watched the same reds team I have this year. Pitching is gold, but you have to be able to plate runs too. The reds sure could use a big bat in the upper levels, a cheap, productive, elite bat.

I mean no offense ice, but your wish to take 5 pitchers and the reason behind it just seem short sighted.

Draft the best player available. The rest of that stuff - I.e. Need at the major league level - will work itself out, via promotion, cuts, or trades.

I have watched the Reds, have you, theyre in the top 5 in pitching and theyre in the race and it looks like theyll be there all season instead of melting around July because their pitching is golden dude. I want pitching and if you think its short sighted I dont care, pitching puts you at the poker table with 4 aces and dueces wild, thats the hand I want

nate
05-10-2009, 10:31 AM
Since pitching is the key to winning baseball and you cant teach throwing 100 mph thats why I said that,

Steve Dalkowski threw hard but it didn't really translate into being a good pitcher.


I thought that would be very obvious to guys who follow baseball like you guys do, you can teach guys how to pitch, we have coaches who can teach these guys off speed stuff, Not always.


so thats why I said with conviction why not. Thats my thinking and its hard for me to change that, we can get some hitters later, I will budge when there's a bonifide plus plus power hitter like Alonso, other than that I want hard throwing pitchers.I want good pitchers. If they throw hard, great but I don't want a "hard thrower" in favor of a "good pitcher."

nate
05-10-2009, 10:38 AM
I have watched the Reds, have you,

I believe all of us here have watched the Reds, yes.


theyre in the top 5 in pitching In 30 games this season versus the bottom 5 in pitching over the previous 1000 games. Although what the major league team is doing this year has to do with draft strategy escapes me. Perhaps you can explain that correlation?


and theyre in the race and it looks like theyll be there all season instead of melting around July because their pitching is golden dude.Great if that happens, golden dudes are hard to come by.


I want pitching and if you think its short sighted I dont care, pitching puts you at the poker table with 4 aces and dueces wild, Not really. Teams that pitch, hit and defend well tend to give one a strong hand.


thats the hand I wantSo it seems.

icehole3
05-10-2009, 10:38 AM
Steve Dalkowski threw hard but it didn't really translate into being a good pitcher.


Thats why I said 5 pitchers in the first 5 rounds, now we're on the same page! Really though, my thinking is to get as good as you possibly can pitching wise each year then get your batters/fielders, just my opinion. We can teach these guys how to pitch I truly believe that.

nate
05-10-2009, 10:43 AM
Thats why I said 5 pitchers in the first 5 rounds, now we're on the same page! Really though, my thinking is to get as good as you possibly can pitching wise each year then get your batters/fielders, just my opinion.

That's fine but you have to field a team behind the pitcher and you have to send someone up to the plate when he's not pitching.


We can teach thhese guys how to pitch I truly believe that.When the Reds start pumping out more Johnny Cuetos of their minor league system with great frequency, I'll believe it too. However, I don't agree with the idea that we draft the HTA (Hardest Thrower Available).

Benihana
05-10-2009, 11:45 AM
I was hoping this thread would focus more on the actual prospects in the upcoming draft and which ones people would like to see the Reds pursue.

The draft a pitcher every round argument just doesn't hold any water, and I think the great majority of the board would agree. Let's try to focus on the actual prospects available.

If you could draft anyone other than Strasburg in the first round, who would you want?

dougdirt
05-10-2009, 01:06 PM
I was hoping this thread would focus more on the actual prospects in the upcoming draft and which ones people would like to see the Reds pursue.

The draft a pitcher every round argument just doesn't hold any water, and I think the great majority of the board would agree. Let's try to focus on the actual prospects available.

If you could draft anyone other than Strasburg in the first round, who would you want?

I don't like this draft all that much. Outside of Strasburg my top 3 guys would be Ackley, Gibson and Crow (assuming his stuff remains the same as last year). I think Gibson and Crow may be available by the time the Reds get to draft. In this years draft I would be glad to take either guy.

Mario-Rijo
05-10-2009, 02:27 PM
If Grant Green is off the board (which I fully expect him to be) and the obvious guys are gone (Strasburg, White, Ackley) these are the players I'd prefer at #8 and in this order. What can I say I am a sucker for LHP. But I figure if you can't get one of those high ceiling LHP's then take the polished closest to the bigs (behind only Strasburg) LHP. I have the 2 sets my top 3 and then my next four.

Tyler Skaggs
Tyler Matzek
Mike Minor

Aaron Crow
Kyle Gibson
Andrew Oliver
Matt Purke

Here I wanna give a preview of what I am hoping will happen and then my alternative plan should that go awry. I know BPA is the way to go but I am still hoping for a SS, LHSP, C and CF in those 1st 5 picks somewhere if the right players are there.

1st - Tyler Scaggs/Mike Minor LHSP
1st - Austin Maddox/Luke Bailey C (Sandwich pick)
2nd - DJ LeMahieu/Ryan Jackson SS
3rd - Reymond Fuentes CF

LoganBuck
05-10-2009, 03:47 PM
Tanner Scheppers is apparently back throwing gas in the indy leagues. Last year the Reds were linked to him. I wonder if that is still the case this year. I read a report that he was working 94-97 and touching 98. He has had arm issues. But he obviously has a special arm when healthy. Any thoughts?

Mario-Rijo
05-11-2009, 03:58 AM
Tanner Scheppers is apparently back throwing gas in the indy leagues. Last year the Reds were linked to him. I wonder if that is still the case this year. I read a report that he was working 94-97 and touching 98. He has had arm issues. But he obviously has a special arm when healthy. Any thoughts?

I just can't fathom taking a guy who had a stress fracture in his pitching shoulder. In the sandwich round I might take the chance but not before. Problem is he probably isn't gonna take any less money so taking him there is even a risk.

thatcoolguy_22
05-11-2009, 06:09 AM
Not to get too far off topic but the battle between Nate and icehole3 is well worth the price of admission... hahahaha

"we should draft a couple of guys who can throw in the upper 90s" -icehole3
"why?" - Nate
"why not?" -icehole 3

hilarious


I'm not really big into scouting the prospects before they sign with the Reds so I can't throw out any names I like in particular. However I am a big fan of the Best Player Available. If we have 5 1B in the minors who rank in Baseball America's top 100 then more trading power for us or some of those guys will start learning new positions. Young talent is worth its weight in gold in today's game.

lollipopcurve
05-11-2009, 12:21 PM
This may be the last year for a while that the Reds have a top tenner. VERY pitching-heavy top of the draft this year, and, given the twin mysteries of pitching mechanics and durability, I'm not going to put a lot of stock in arguments made for or against any of the top arms (though I do think it's reasonable to be wary of Scheppers, given the problem he had last year).

Lotta high school arms floating around the top 10 this year. I have to wonder if one or two rise to the top of that class, and drop to #8, whether the Reds would pop him. I'm a fan of Mike Leake out of Arizona State, but I'd also be intrigued by a high schooler. We haven't had one of those to bang heads about since Bailey. In my view, the system needs a high-ceiling, hard-throwing lefty -- though system needs should not govern the pick.

So, yeah, I'm not getting too invested in any one player or two this year. Green isn't going to drop to the Reds (I see no way he gets by Baltimore), and pitchers are hard to analyze....

tripleaaaron
05-11-2009, 10:43 PM
If Grant Green is off the board (which I fully expect him to be) and the obvious guys are gone (Strasburg, White, Ackley) these are the players I'd prefer at #8 and in this order. What can I say I am a sucker for LHP. But I figure if you can't get one of those high ceiling LHP's then take the polished closest to the bigs (behind only Strasburg) LHP. I have the 2 sets my top 3 and then my next four.


On Grant Green according to BA: "Hasn't progressed from last year; stock is slipping"
Would like to grab Jiovanni Mier in the supplemental or 2nd round instead and go after one of the many pitchers available. Would prefer a college arm that is closer to the big leagues as we look at supplanting Arroyo and Harang.

After Strasburg:
1. Ackley (will definitely be gone)
2. White (most likely gone)

3. Gibson
4. Matzek
5. Crow

6. Scheppers
7. Purke

Draft Preview: http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/draft-tracker/2009/268072.html

Mario-Rijo
05-12-2009, 02:49 AM
On Grant Green according to BA: "Hasn't progressed from last year; stock is slipping"
Would like to grab Jiovanni Mier in the supplemental or 2nd round instead and go after one of the many pitchers available. Would prefer a college arm that is closer to the big leagues as we look at supplanting Arroyo and Harang.

After Strasburg:
1. Ackley (will definitely be gone)
2. White (most likely gone)

3. Gibson
4. Matzek
5. Crow

6. Scheppers
7. Purke

Draft Preview: http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/draft-tracker/2009/268072.html

Yeah I read that on Green, I don't honestly feel their argument for him to slip holds much merit. Even if he hasn't put up the #'s he did last year he is still a high quality defender with plenty enough bat for us in that spot. But I suspect he won't be there regardless. As lollipopcurve made mention of Baltimore would have a lot of interest in him at #5, of course they still need pitching as well so I'm on the fence about them.

From what I have been reading though Tyler Skaggs is the arm interesting me most right now as far as HS's go. He's being compared favorably to Cole Hamels, more favorably than Matzek or Purke (who reportedly generates alot of his velocity with his upper body) by scouts.

As far as college arms go I love LHP Mike Minor's game, he's not a potential ace but he should move very quickly and be a good #2 in the next couple of years. Draft him now, get him signed quickly and he could be in the pros by mid-late '11. Add a Bailey, Lotzkar or Sulbaran perhaps even a Buck (if he can ever get and stay healthy) and you have continued stellar pitching.