PDA

View Full Version : John Sickels on the Reds draft



OnBaseMachine
06-14-2009, 02:39 AM
Cincinnati: While some might consider Arizona State RHP Mike Leake an overdraft at eighth overall, I don't; I think that's an excellent pick. He has very good stuff, and his excellent pitchability makes it all play up. USC RHP Brad Boxberger in the supplemental round needs to sharpen his control, but he is also an experienced college pitcher with good stuff, and also a legitimate pick in that spot. Second round Mississippi prep shortstop Billy Hamilton is an incredible athlete; quite raw, but with very high upside. University of Houston lefty Donnie Joseph looks like a sound choice in the third round, on the basis of his low-90s fastball, good slider, and strong college numbers. Fourth round UNC catcher Mark Fleury has decent power, a measure of patience, and should be solid with the glove. Dan Tuttle, fifth round North Carolina HS RHP, is a raw arm, but adds some youth to a college-oriented draft. Sixth round Oral Roberts RHP Mark Serrano and seventh round Cal State Fullerton OF Josh Fellhauer are steady college performers who won't be stars but should get to the majors in some capacity. I like the mixture of skill picks with some tool picks.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/6/12/906567/national-league-central-draft

kfm
06-14-2009, 06:41 PM
Cincinnati: While some might consider Arizona State RHP Mike Leake an overdraft at eighth overall, I don't; I think that's an excellent pick. He has very good stuff, and his excellent pitchability makes it all play up. USC RHP Brad Boxberger in the supplemental round needs to sharpen his control, but he is also an experienced college pitcher with good stuff, and also a legitimate pick in that spot. Second round Mississippi prep shortstop Billy Hamilton is an incredible athlete; quite raw, but with very high upside. University of Houston lefty Donnie Joseph looks like a sound choice in the third round, on the basis of his low-90s fastball, good slider, and strong college numbers. Fourth round UNC catcher Mark Fleury has decent power, a measure of patience, and should be solid with the glove. Dan Tuttle, fifth round North Carolina HS RHP, is a raw arm, but adds some youth to a college-oriented draft. Sixth round Oral Roberts RHP Mark Serrano and seventh round Cal State Fullerton OF Josh Fellhauer are steady college performers who won't be stars but should get to the majors in some capacity. I like the mixture of skill picks with some tool picks.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/6/12/906567/national-league-central-draft

Thanks for posting this. Looks like someone likes the Reds draft.

KoryMac5
06-14-2009, 11:28 PM
I think folks will warm to the draft based on what they see these kids do at each stop in the minors. Personally at the time I wasn't very excited about some of these kids, but I am starting to warm slowly as new information on these players becomes available. I mean how many years did it take for people to warm to Drew Stubbs?

GIDP
06-15-2009, 12:16 AM
John Sickels always seems to like the Reds.

Mario-Rijo
06-15-2009, 07:13 PM
I wasn't happy with the Boxberger pick and don't know if I'll ever be, I also thought Joseph was a bit of a reach where he was selected and Hamilton as well to a much lesser extent. Had they shifted those guys around a bit I'd have been completely content. Something like Leake, insert high upside high talent and highly skilled player here, Hamilton, Boxberger and then Joseph i'd have been a lot happier. That said guys like Silva, Marrero, Perez, Tuttle, Fellhauer, Fleury, Barnhart, Pearl, Serrano, Johnson and Fowler more than make up for it. Assuming of course they can actually sign all or most of them. It's really hard not to like what they have done here. Although an arm or 2 who can consistently hit mid to high 90's sure would have been nice to have gotten. But overall if they sign Marrero, Perez, Silva, Tuttle and Barnhart (along with the collegians) I'll be ecstatic about this draft.

redsmetz
06-16-2009, 10:50 AM
I wasn't happy with the Boxberger pick and don't know if I'll ever be, I also thought Joseph was a bit of a reach where he was selected and Hamilton as well to a much lesser extent. Had they shifted those guys around a bit I'd have been completely content. Something like Leake, insert high upside high talent and highly skilled player here, Hamilton, Boxberger and then Joseph i'd have been a lot happier. That said guys like Silva, Marrero, Perez, Tuttle, Fellhauer, Fleury, Barnhart, Pearl, Serrano, Johnson and Fowler more than make up for it. Assuming of course they can actually sign all or most of them. It's really hard not to like what they have done here. Although an arm or 2 who can consistently hit mid to high 90's sure would have been nice to have gotten. But overall if they sign Marrero, Perez, Silva, Tuttle and Barnhart (along with the collegians) I'll be ecstatic about this draft.

Not trying to be snide, but I'm perplexed about the highlighted statement. Regardless of how it shakes out, we still have the same players. While I understand draft position will impact signability and bonuses, if we sign all of these guys (and Hamilton and Joseph are in the fold) what difference does it make?

Homer Bailey
06-16-2009, 10:57 AM
Not trying to be snide, but I'm perplexed about the highlighted statement. Regardless of how it shakes out, we still have the same players. While I understand draft position will impact signability and bonuses, if we sign all of these guys (and Hamilton and Joseph are in the fold) what difference does it make?

I think he is referring to the fact that Boxberger was taken a bit too early, especially when there was a guy like Scheppers still on the board. If we could have gotten a talent like Scheppers at 43, then added the guys that we got a little bit later down the road, he would be much more happy. And I agree with that 100%.

dougdirt
06-16-2009, 01:14 PM
I think he is referring to the fact that Boxberger was taken a bit too early, especially when there was a guy like Scheppers still on the board. If we could have gotten a talent like Scheppers at 43, then added the guys that we got a little bit later down the road, he would be much more happy. And I agree with that 100%.

Well it would be hard to disagree with his statement because we then would have gotten all of the talent we did get a round later. However none of those guys would have been available a round later. I still don't understand why there is so much hate on Boxberger. What is the difference between Boxberger and a guy like Alex White who was rumored to go inside the top 10 and ultimately went 15th to the Indians? I don't see the difference at all.

OnBaseMachine
06-16-2009, 02:08 PM
At first, I wasn't a big fan of the Boxberger pick but after doing some more research, I really don't mind the pick now. According to BA, he throws his fastball at 91-93 and touches 94, he also mixes in a curveball and circle changeup. BA says all three of his pitches have plus potential. In addition to his solid stuff, he put up some good numbers in the tough Pac-10 this season - 94 IP, 69 H, 4 HR, 50 BB/99 K. The one knock on Boxberger appears to be his control. The hit/HR and strikeout totals are nice but the walks are a little high. He'll need to work on that.

dougdirt
06-16-2009, 02:10 PM
At first, I wasn't a big fan of the Boxberger pick but after doing some more research, I really don't mind the pick now. According to BA, he throws his fastball at 91-93 and touches 94, he also mixes in a curveball and circle changeup. BA says all three of his pitches have plus potential. In addition to his solid stuff, he put up some good numbers in the tough Pac-10 this season - 94 IP, 69 H, 4 HR, 50 BB/99 K. The one knock on Boxberger appears to be his control. The hit/HR and strikeout totals are nice but the walks are a little high. He'll need to work on that.

Sounds about right. I guess my question is, at that point in the draft, who doesn't have a wart on their resume? Everyone did at that point so I just don't get the issues with him.

OnBaseMachine
06-16-2009, 02:14 PM
Sounds about right. I guess my question is, at that point in the draft, who doesn't have a wart on their resume? Everyone did at that point so I just don't get the issues with him.

Yep. I was a fan of taking Scheppers at 43 if he was available, but I understand the Reds decision to pass on him. I guess they figured there's a better chance of Boxberger improving his control and developing into a #3 starter than Scheppers overcoming a tear in his pitching shoulder and becoming a #1 starter.

Mario-Rijo
06-16-2009, 02:30 PM
I think he is referring to the fact that Boxberger was taken a bit too early, especially when there was a guy like Scheppers still on the board. If we could have gotten a talent like Scheppers at 43, then added the guys that we got a little bit later down the road, he would be much more happy. And I agree with that 100%.

Yeah pretty much what I meant HB, thanks. Although not necc. Scheppers but plenty other guys right there to take. Obviously I'd have had to lose one of the guys we got somewhere down the line but who really knows where. As far as them not being available later I don't know that to be true. This being a little different from the NFL and NBA drafts where teams can have vastly different views of players they very well could have had a guy drop a round. 2 rounds, maybe not but again not a big fan of Boxberger so if he was the guy I lost for picking up another so be it. I mean could we have done better than Sean Watson at the time? What about Tyler Cline, Scott Carroll? It may be premature to question these choices but so far their track record in reaching for arms early in drafts is mostly miss.

dougdirt
06-16-2009, 02:45 PM
Yeah pretty much what I meant HB, thanks. Although not necc. Scheppers but plenty other guys right there to take. Obviously I'd have had to lose one of the guys we got somewhere down the line but who really knows where. As far as them not being available later I don't know that to be true. This being a little different from the NFL and NBA drafts where teams can have vastly different views of players they very well could have had a guy drop a round. 2 rounds, maybe not but again not a big fan of Boxberger so if he was the guy I lost for picking up another so be it. I mean could we have done better than Sean Watson at the time? What about Tyler Cline, Scott Carroll? It may be premature to question these choices but so far their track record in reaching for arms early in drafts is mostly miss.

Tyler Cline was a 4th round pick last year and he has thrown less than 10 innings and he was a reach? Scott Carroll wasn't really a reach and Sean Watson wasn't either at the time of the draft. I just can't see how you can throw those guys all in the 'miss category'.

Mario-Rijo
06-16-2009, 03:03 PM
Tyler Cline was a 4th round pick last year and he has thrown less than 10 innings and he was a reach? Scott Carroll wasn't really a reach and Sean Watson wasn't either at the time of the draft. I just can't see how you can throw those guys all in the 'miss category'.

Well they sure haven't set the world on fire Doug. Watson is just now having any real consistency besides Low A ball where he could get away with 1 good pitch, Scott Carroll has done what but toil and Cline has barely even pitched yet after close to a year being with the organization. I'd like to see a bit more out of top 5 round selections. You have guys drafted after them who actually have better track records of some success just in this organization alone. 3 years from now if Boxberger is in AA and maybe has a shot at being a good reliever will that be considered a good selection by most here, by anybody? For a 1st round selection? No I doubt it.

princeton
06-16-2009, 03:09 PM
could we have done better than Sean Watson at the time? What about Tyler Cline, Scott Carroll? It may be premature to question these choices but so far their track record in reaching for arms early in drafts is mostly miss.

I think that you make a fair point. In three years, the big pitching adds are Roenicke and Stewart and Sulbaran. That's not bad (we've had worse, believe me) but it's not a world-beating record either. We've done much better in the hitting department.

I think that part of that has been due to the philosophy of drafting tall guys with lots of upside but lots of needs. That's tough, when development is not a Reds forte. You might see big late improvement (in other words, be patient), but it might also be a matter of square peg/round hole.

on the plus side, it strikes me that the scouts adjusted to the developmental reality and opted in 2009 for shorter guys that are closer to the majors. Boxberger fits. I've no problem with the pick.

first 2 Buckley drafts: average height of pitchers taken in top 13 rounds; 6'3.5"

last 2 drafts: 6'1.4"

try new stuff

dougdirt
06-16-2009, 03:42 PM
Well they sure haven't set the world on fire Doug. Watson is just now having any real consistency besides Low A ball where he could get away with 1 good pitch, Scott Carroll has done what but toil and Cline has barely even pitched yet after close to a year being with the organization. I'd like to see a bit more out of top 5 round selections. You have guys drafted after them who actually have better track records of some success just in this organization alone. 3 years from now if Boxberger is in AA and maybe has a shot at being a good reliever will that be considered a good selection by most here, by anybody? For a 1st round selection? No I doubt it.

If you aren't drafting inside the top 10 or 15, hardly any of your picks are going to set the world on fire. You are talking about a 2nd round reliever, a 3rd round starting pitcher who played more football in college than baseball and a 4th round pick drafted just last year out of high school who hasn't even had his season start this year.

Watson has battled a lot of issues. He couldn't locate his breaking ball in the zone and wound up scrapping it later. Then he couldn't find the strikezone. Lately he is pitching better, but really, you were talking about reaching and at the time of the draft, he went in the range where he was projected to go.

Scott Carroll was a raw type of pitcher because he was also a college football player (QB) and was never able to focus solely on one sport. Last year he got better month by month and well, he had the unfortunate positive test that he and the Reds both fought as a false positive and he has made 1 start this season just last week.

As for Tyler Cline, he made two starts last season. Two. He is likely heading to the GCL or Billings (likely GCL) as a guy in his first full season out of high school as a 4th round pick. You make it sound like he is 22 years old and hasn't made it out of the GCL yet. He is right on target for where just about everyone else his age/draft spot is at.

I think you have the wrong idea of what a draft pick is if you think those guys are 'misses' already, especially Carroll and Cline. Heck, even a guy like Watson is showing MLB qualities at this point in AA. Do I like the idea of a reliever in the 2nd round? Not at all. But if we wind up getting ANY major league production from a 2nd rounder I am going to be happy with that given the fail rates of draft picks.

And lets not really call Boxberger a first rounder. He was a supplemental pick. And as far as him being a reliever in 3 years, well we will see. But I don't think thats in the Reds plans right now.

Do you remember the threads started by M2 a few weeks ago where we redid all of the drafts? Remember how after about 20-25 picks we started getting into role players? If the Reds get a reliever out of Boxberger in the end, then they made a good selection.

fearofpopvol1
06-16-2009, 05:11 PM
Well they sure haven't set the world on fire Doug. Watson is just now having any real consistency besides Low A ball where he could get away with 1 good pitch, Scott Carroll has done what but toil and Cline has barely even pitched yet after close to a year being with the organization. I'd like to see a bit more out of top 5 round selections. You have guys drafted after them who actually have better track records of some success just in this organization alone. 3 years from now if Boxberger is in AA and maybe has a shot at being a good reliever will that be considered a good selection by most here, by anybody? For a 1st round selection? No I doubt it.

I think Doug makes a valid point. Sure...there may be 30 great picks or so each draft...but the first round or any round will contain picks that won't all pan out. And this will happen to EVERY team. But who would've thought Hererra (a 45th rounder) would be a very servicable (at least thus far) major league reliever? Scouting is very important, but luck is too. And development...and the Reds, historically, have been awful at developing.

I think some of the criticisms of those players named...you have to give a little more time to. It's a little early.

Homer Bailey
06-16-2009, 05:20 PM
In three years, the big pitching adds are Roenicke and Stewart and Sulbaran.



I'd add Fairel in there as well. I want to say Wood was 2005, so I guess we can't use him. Also add in Maloney. He hasn't set the world on fire, but he's been great at AAA and solid so far in his first 2 mlb starts.

princeton
06-16-2009, 06:21 PM
I'd add Fairel in there as well. I want to say Wood was 2005, so I guess we can't use him. Also add in Maloney. He hasn't set the world on fire, but he's been great at AAA and solid so far in his first 2 mlb starts.

these guys didn't draft Wood or Maloney, and Fairel probably just hasn't risen to his level of incompetence yet. Even in Latin America, where most attention is paid to middle infielders, catchers and pitchers, these guys have focused on OFers.

so pitching remains to be seen. as previously stated, we've had much worse.

Blitz Dorsey
06-16-2009, 09:42 PM
Tyler Cline was a 4th round pick last year and he has thrown less than 10 innings and he was a reach? Scott Carroll wasn't really a reach and Sean Watson wasn't either at the time of the draft. I just can't see how you can throw those guys all in the 'miss category'.

Yes, Cline was a reach. Just the fact that he was a fourth round pick and he's only thrown 10 innings (more than a year after the draft) kind of proves his point. And yes, I know he was only 17 when he was drafted... was still a reach IMO.

dougdirt
06-16-2009, 09:48 PM
Yes, Cline was a reach. Just the fact that he was a fourth round pick and he's only thrown 10 innings (more than a year after the draft) kind of proves his point. And yes, I know he was only 17 when he was drafted... was still a reach IMO.

I fail to see your point. Most 18 year old kids in their first full season are going to play in rookie ball. He signed late last year and only got about 2 weeks of a season last year and rookie ball hasn't started yet this year. The fact that he didn't go straight to Dayton at age 18 as a 4th rounder means he was a reach?

Mario-Rijo
06-16-2009, 10:07 PM
I fail to see your point. Most 18 year old kids in their first full season are going to play in rookie ball. He signed late last year and only got about 2 weeks of a season last year and rookie ball hasn't started yet this year. The fact that he didn't go straight to Dayton at age 18 as a 4th rounder means he was a reach?

You make a good point on Cline. My whole overall point is Buckley and this group tend to undervalue "stuff guys". We don't have a legitimate #1 starter in this organization drafted by this group. Lotzkar might be a possibility but of course he's been hit with the injury bug 2 years running. You must draft #1 types because you cannot get them any other way, rarely anyway. Buckley has a history of this type of thing with a whole bunch of solid but unspectacular #3-4 types and relief types who aren't necc. high leverage guys in Toronto as well. Very few who can get the ball over 93-94 MPH. It's great he's getting who he is getting but he needs to add a few potential high impact types every year as well. You typically find those guys in the 1st 5 rounds or so, we just don't attempt to find them.

dougdirt
06-16-2009, 10:20 PM
You make a good point on Cline. My whole overall point is Buckley and this group tend to undervalue "stuff guys". We don't have a legitimate #1 starter in this organization drafted by this group. Lotzkar might be a possibility but of course he's been hit with the injury bug 2 years running. You must draft #1 types because you cannot get them any other way, rarely anyway. Buckley has a history of this type of thing with a whole bunch of solid but unspectacular #3-4 types and relief types who aren't necc. high leverage guys in Toronto as well. Very few who can get the ball over 93-94 MPH. It's great he's getting who he is getting but he needs to add a few potential high impact types every year as well. You typically find those guys in the 1st 5 rounds or so, we just don't attempt to find them.

Zach Stewart doesn't have #1 type stuff?

Mario-Rijo
06-16-2009, 10:48 PM
Zach Stewart doesn't have #1 type stuff?

No more than Mike Leake does he? I see them both as eventual #2's or 3's, Stewart may yet end up in the pen as well.

dougdirt
06-16-2009, 10:51 PM
No more than Mike Leake does he? I see them both as eventual #2's or 3's, Stewart may yet end up in the pen as well.

So a 92-95 MPH fastball (hits 96 multiple times each game) with sink on it, a plus slider and an average change up with good control isn't #1 type of stuff? That's what Stewart is working with. If thats not #1 type stuff I don't know what #1 stuff is.

Mario-Rijo
06-16-2009, 11:00 PM
So a 92-95 MPH fastball (hits 96 multiple times each game) with sink on it, a plus slider and an average change up with good control isn't #1 type of stuff? That's what Stewart is working with. If thats not #1 type stuff I don't know what #1 stuff is.

Well if he's doing that he's pumped up his scouting report pretty well. His scouting report said he could get it up there (96-97) out of the pen but when he starts he is around 89-93 with an average to plus slurvy slider, and an average change. Both the slider and change needed refinement. So your telling me he has refined his slider and added 2-3 MPH on his FB already?

dougdirt
06-16-2009, 11:24 PM
Well if he's doing that he's pumped up his scouting report pretty well. His scouting report said he could get it up there (96-97) out of the pen but when he starts he is around 89-93 with an average to plus slurvy slider, and an average change. Both the slider and change needed refinement. So your telling me he has refined his slider and added 2-3 MPH on his FB already?

What scouting report are you referring to?

Mario-Rijo
06-16-2009, 11:38 PM
What scouting report are you referring to?

I assume since he was mostly used as a Reliever at TT most of this is directed at that and I can't imagine he'd be throwing that hard and then be tossing 89-93 as anything but a starter.

PG Cross Checker and MLB.com.


Fastball: Stewart showed plus, plus velocity, throwing his fastball in the 95-97 mph range.

Fastball movement: It had plus life as well.

Slider: He showed a slider that was average-to-plus and threw it with good deception.

Control: He had plus command, particularly of his fastball.

Poise: He has a closer mentality, very aggressive and going right after hitters.

Physical Description: Stewart isn't all that big, but he's strong-bodied and his stuff plays big as does his bulldog mentality.

Medical Update: Healthy.

Strengths: Two plus power pitches and command of both of them. He has the right demeanor to be a closer.

Weaknesses: Having played at three colleges in three years, there's no real track record.

Summary: College closers have become all the rage lately, with some getting drafted early every year. Stewart could be in that group in 2008. The Texas Tech reliever relies on a plus fastball and slider and commands both power offerings well. He's got the kind of makeup you want in a short reliever, a guy who is very aggressive and goes right after hitters. The stuff plus the mentality could push Stewart into early-round consideration.


SCOUTING REPORT (3/1): After a year at Division II Angelo State (Texas) and another at North Central Texas JC, where he went 8-3, 2.29 as a starter in 2007, Stewart has taken over as the closer at Texas Tech this spring. It’s a role he’s cut out to perform as he has an aggressive demeanor and doesn’t give in to hitters. He was Texas Tech’s best arm filling that role in the early going. He displays good sinking action on an 89-93 mph fastball that tails away from lefthanded hitters and bores in or righthanders. The pitch produces a steady stream of ground-ball outs. He also gets slurve-like action on a 75-77 mph slider and gets occasional sink on his changeup, normally a 74-76 mph offering. He has no mechanical faults, but needs work on refining his slider and change.—ALLAN SIMPSON

UPDATE (5/15): Stewart’s unsightly 4.98 ERA (to go with a 3-2 record and three saves) was blown up during his first start of the season (of three total) on April 25 when he allowed a nine-run inning to Oklahoma. He was auditioned as a starter late in the season, in part to give scouts an extended look as he got few opportunities to work in a closer role on a struggling Texas Tech team. Stewart is clearly a reliever and his ability in that role cast him into the first two rounds of the draft. He was steadily 92-95 mph all spring with outstanding sinking life on his fastball.—DAVID RAWNSLEY

11larkin11
06-16-2009, 11:40 PM
Quick question. If a team doesn't sign a sandwich pick, do they get compensation the next round. e.g. if we don't sign Boxberger, do we get a pick next year for it?

Betterread
06-17-2009, 12:01 AM
Zach Stewart doesn't have #1 type stuff?

Wow! You think Steward is a potential #1 after roughly two months of starting? You think his offspeed pitch is a 70 or higher. I salivate at the thought. Show me the recent independent scouting report rating his stuff, command and control and I'll believe.

dougdirt
06-17-2009, 12:29 AM
I assume since he was mostly used as a Reliever at TT most of this is directed at that and I can't imagine he'd be throwing that hard and then be tossing 89-93 as anything but a starter.

PG Cross Checker and MLB.com.

Those reports are over a year old.

I have gotten two separate reports this year that have Stewart sitting 92-95 all game and hitting 96 MPH multiple times during the game. I saw his slider this year in Dayton. Its a plus pitch. Previous scouting reports back that up as well. His change up is in the 86-88 MPH range. When its on, its a good pitch.


Wow! You think Steward is a potential #1 after roughly two months of starting? You think his offspeed pitch is a 70 or higher. I salivate at the thought. Show me the recent independent scouting report rating his stuff, command and control and I'll believe.

Well, as noted above I have more than one report on his velocity in the 92-95 range all game and hitting 96 multiple times during the games. His slider has been considered plus in the past and when I saw him in Dayton it still looked like a plus pitch (April). As for his control, just look at his walk rates. They are pretty darn good.

I can't bust out the OFP report on him because well, I don't have one. I do know what I have been told though and what I have seen with my eyes.

OnBaseMachine
06-17-2009, 02:12 AM
I've yet to hear anyone who has seen Stewart pitch in the Reds organization describe his slider as anything less than a plus pitch. Every report I've read on him has raved about his slider. I have to agree with Doug on Stewart's ceiling. A guy that can throw 92-95 and touch 96 with good sink while mixing in a plus slider and average changeup projects as a top-of-rotation starter to me.

dougdirt
06-17-2009, 02:21 AM
BTW, Stewart pitches tomorrow at 7:15pm. You can listen live here (http://asx.aicmail.net/mlb/mudcats.asx) (not likely to work until about 7:00 or 7:05 though) if you want and listen for some velocities being mentioned throughout the broadcast (assuming the gun is working in Tennessee). We know his slider is a plus pitch. We know he gets a ton of groundballs (rates pushing 60% this year).

princeton
06-17-2009, 10:08 AM
Quick question. If a team doesn't sign a sandwich pick, do they get compensation the next round. e.g. if we don't sign Boxberger, do we get a pick next year for it?

I found this:



Compensation for Failure to Sign High Draft Picks

Teams that fail to sign a first or second round pick will be compensated by receiving a virtually identical pick (plus one) in the following year's draft (ex., a team that fails to sign the No. 5 pick in 2006 receives the No. 6 pick in 2007). A team that fails to sign a second round pick gets virtually the identical pick the following season regardless of the round (for example, if Boston fails to sign pick #62, it will receive pick #62A (~63) in the next year's draft, regardless of whether pick #62A falls in the supplemental round, the second round, or the third round). A team that fails to sign a third-round pick receives a sandwich pick between the third and fourth rounds. None of these picks may be forfeited. Additionally, these compensation picks do not count as a pick when counting picks 1-15 in the first round that are protected from Type A compensation.



my take is yes, but failure to sign sandwich round selections isn't specifically mentioned.

HokieRed
06-17-2009, 10:19 AM
A note on previous "stuff" guys taken number 1 by our organization: Howington, Sowers, Wagner, Gruler. Three projectable Number 1's and a high profile reliever (even thought of as a possible starter, as some will remember). No guarantees in the first round or anywhere else. I'm happy with Leake.

jojo
06-17-2009, 10:35 AM
John Sickels always seems to like the Reds.

I think he's generally pretty fair and unbiased (at least he'll admit when a bias colors his projection).

Look how he graded Seattle's draft. The temptation might have been to give some grade inflation due to the proven record of the new guys running the Ms draft. I don't think he's guilty of pulling any punches on his assessment.

He's always a great read.

princeton
06-17-2009, 10:54 AM
A note on previous "stuff" guys taken number 1 by our organization: Howington, Sowers, Wagner, Gruler. Three projectable Number 1's and a high profile reliever (even thought of as a possible starter, as some will remember). No guarantees in the first round or anywhere else. I'm happy with Leake.

you're incorrect on Wagner (RP only) and Sowers (not a stuff guy, not a number 1). Gruler/Bailey is probably more what you're thinking.

high school arms do get hurt. Bowden's team was particularly adept at finding the injuries. might have been better to have Costanza'd the first rounders and picked opposite to what they liked.

HokieRed
06-17-2009, 12:51 PM
I don't think I'm incorrect at all. Wagner was touted as having extraordinary stuff, which he did, and there was talk that he might start. The fact that Jeremy Sowers has not become a number 1 starter does not mean that wasn't the buzz about him when he was picked. It was, both in Cinti and later in Cleveland. My point was that you don't simply pick the Matzeks and then pencil in the number 1 starters four years later. It's a whole lot more mysterious than that.

Mario-Rijo
06-17-2009, 01:35 PM
A note on previous "stuff" guys taken number 1 by our organization: Howington, Sowers, Wagner, Gruler. Three projectable Number 1's and a high profile reliever (even thought of as a possible starter, as some will remember). No guarantees in the first round or anywhere else. I'm happy with Leake.

How about we note all the "stuff" guys we have passed on that have turned out for other teams while we're at it then. Sure there are no guarantees but there have been plenty of guys we continue to avoid and they turn out.

Up to this point it's not necc. a big deal but when we have a team capable of competing in the playoffs we will need those types to lean on. I believe we have one in Cueto and I hope Volquez progresses into a consistently confident ace type, and that those young guns turn out to be devastating in the minors. But I also remember once upon a time when the NYM had an Isringhausen/Pulsipher/Wilson and when Oakland had Hudson/Mulder/Zito. One staff was beset by injuries the other was split up due to dollars. You need a steady flow. Let's hope the handful of promising arms we have both make it and can stay healthy.

krm1580
06-17-2009, 04:25 PM
I don't think I'm incorrect at all. Wagner was touted as having extraordinary stuff, which he did, and there was talk that he might start. The fact that Jeremy Sowers has not become a number 1 starter does not mean that wasn't the buzz about him when he was picked. It was, both in Cinti and later in Cleveland. My point was that you don't simply pick the Matzeks and then pencil in the number 1 starters four years later. It's a whole lot more mysterious than that.


Wagner's slider was considered a plus plus pitch and his FB was slightly above, more for its movement than velocity. He had no real effective third pitch which is why he was a reliever. He had a violent delivery and when they smoothed it out his plus plus slider disappeared hence his lack of success.

Sowers was more of a polished pitchablity guy than an elite stuff guy. There was discussion at the time that he was a reach because he was firmly commited to Vanderbilt and the Reds purposely punted the pick because they had budget issues from the draft the year before after signing Espinosa and Dane Sardinah to major league contracts.

princeton
06-17-2009, 04:27 PM
I don't think I'm incorrect at all. Wagner was touted as having extraordinary stuff, which he did, and there was talk that he might start. The fact that Jeremy Sowers has not become a number 1 starter does not mean that wasn't the buzz about him when he was picked. It was, both in Cinti and later in Cleveland. My point was that you don't simply pick the Matzeks and then pencil in the number 1 starters four years later. It's a whole lot more mysterious than that.

you can cherrypick pitchers to make your point (and others can cherrypick to refute your point) if you like. But at least cherrypick the correct type of pitchers. I'd go for stuff-plus collegiate starters, myself, since most are talking about Leake vs. Aaron Crow. there are certainly some bombs in that category. some big winners, as well. non-Reds, of course

HokieRed
06-17-2009, 04:46 PM
you can cherrypick pitchers to make your point (and others can cherrypick to refute your point) if you like. But at least cherrypick the correct type of pitchers. I'd go for stuff-plus collegiate starters, myself, since most are talking about Leake vs. Aaron Crow. there are certainly some bombs in that category. some big winners, as well. non-Reds, of course

I'm not the one who initiated cherry-picking to criticize the draft or the strategies of Buckley. If you want to look at cherry-picking, look at claims like the ones asserted on this thread, or a similar one, that taking Alonso ahead of Smoak was somehow "overdrafting" or reaching--this because we took a guy 7th who had been picked in the top 10 by every conceivable mock draft. I was reacting to assertions that somehow Buckley doesn't take "stuff" guys as if that is some infallible strategy to get number 1 starters. And frankly I don't consider that the relevant comparison in this draft is between Crow and Leake. You can argue that the reason not to take Crow has something to do with his mechanics and his past injury. I'd say the more important question was taking Leake over Matzek. So Gruler is perfectly relevant. All I was doing was asking people to remember some of the Reds' history in taking guys with great velocity and supposedly plus-plus pitches.

Blitz Dorsey
06-17-2009, 10:34 PM
Come on, Cline in the fourth round last year was a reach. Was there even a scouting report on him before the draft? Weren't even the people close to him shocked he was taken that high? He was getting ready to go to some really small Christian college and I don't think anyone had him projected as a top 10 round pick, let along top five rounds.

That said, I hope Buckley was 100 percent right and Tyler Cline will be a stud for the Reds one day.

HokieRed
06-17-2009, 10:37 PM
I don't think we know enough about Cline yet to know whether he was a reach or not. He's a kid one year out of h.s. and being in the GCL is right about where you'd expect him to be. I have to say he's one of last year's picks that puzzles me. Let's see what he's got.

dougdirt
06-17-2009, 11:00 PM
Come on, Cline in the fourth round last year was a reach. Was there even a scouting report on him before the draft? Weren't even the people close to him shocked he was taken that high? He was getting ready to go to some really small Christian college and I don't think anyone had him projected as a top 10 round pick, let along top five rounds.

That said, I hope Buckley was 100 percent right and Tyler Cline will be a stud for the Reds one day.

I don't know how to say this nicely, but apparently Cline wasn't "college material" if you get my drift. Or so that was something I read on him. There was a lot going on with him his senior season where he apparently transferred schools during the season to pitch for his previous schools rival. Still the guy had a fastball that topped out at 94 MPH as a senior in high school. There were a bunch of scouting reports that were out there on him that didn't have him that high, but there were a few that did. It seems that the places who didn't see his 94 MPH game didn't think he was worthy of where he went.

Blitz Dorsey
06-18-2009, 01:06 AM
I don't know how to say this nicely, but apparently Cline wasn't "college material" if you get my drift. Or so that was something I read on him. There was a lot going on with him his senior season where he apparently transferred schools during the season to pitch for his previous schools rival. Still the guy had a fastball that topped out at 94 MPH as a senior in high school. There were a bunch of scouting reports that were out there on him that didn't have him that high, but there were a few that did. It seems that the places who didn't see his 94 MPH game didn't think he was worthy of where he went.

Yeah, I remember reading some high school baseball message board last year after the draft (the link was probably posted to this board) and fans were really trashing him. That will happen when you transfer to the rival school. I also remember something about the, uh, er "not college material" part, but he was at least going to go to some small college. I think he was home schooled growing up if I'm not mistaken.

I could be 100 percent wrong here, but he just seemed like a kid they could have gotten a lot later. Or at least a couple rounds later. It was a Bengals-like pick (well, Bengals drafts pre '09, they actually did well this year getting value with their picks).

Patrick Bateman
06-18-2009, 01:45 AM
It's a 4th round pick. Your basing your opinions on what other publications like BA or milb think of the guy. The Reds who have seen him and a bunch of other prospects play that neither of us have seen liked him enough to take him in the 4th round. Who knows whether they were right to do so, but from our end, there isn't any information available to suggest that they could have waited to get him earlier. The MLB draft is really really subjective, and most 4th rounders aren't going to make it. Ty Cline seems like a pretty typical raw high school type of talent, I don't see why there is so much focus on him when there were another handful of similar picks in similar rounds.

Homer Bailey
06-18-2009, 10:53 AM
Where is Tyler Cline? I'm guessing there is a good reason why I haven't heard his name in quite some time.

traderumor
06-18-2009, 10:57 AM
Wagner's slider was considered a plus plus pitch and his FB was slightly above, more for its movement than velocity. He had no real effective third pitch which is why he was a reliever. He had a violent delivery and when they smoothed it out his plus plus slider disappeared hence his lack of success.

Sowers was more of a polished pitchablity guy than an elite stuff guy. There was discussion at the time that he was a reach because he was firmly commited to Vanderbilt and the Reds purposely punted the pick because they had budget issues from the draft the year before after signing Espinosa and Dane Sardinah to major league contracts.I have not understood the Sowers draft love since watching him pitch at the major league level. It is hard to understand how his stuff was that successful at any level.

dougdirt
06-18-2009, 01:58 PM
Where is Tyler Cline? I'm guessing there is a good reason why I haven't heard his name in quite some time.

Probably waiting for the GCL to start in 5 days.