PDA

View Full Version : Who is your pick?



Mario-Rijo
06-07-2010, 07:12 AM
Figured we always here how someone preferred someone else a year or 2 after the draft, let's put it in writing shall we. I know LoganBuck has a similiar thread going so I am adding a poll just to more easily view the consensus. Who is your #1 guy, assuming of course the usual suspects don't drop down to us at #12 i.e. Harper, Tallion, Machado, Pomeranz, C. Sale (and a couple others really) seem to be locks to go well before us along with Grandal who now seems destined for KC (thank goodness). But if you think any of those will drop to us and would be our best choice feel free to write them in and vote other.

**POLL WILL CLOSE IN 24 Hours**


Also if there is a guy you want no part of please let it be known, this should be fun to look at in 3 years. Mine was Yasmani Grandal, though I wouldn't have hated it I felt he was at the very least a guy who wasn't gonna have the defensive chops to be worthy of this high a pick. Johnny Estrada seems like a good comp to me.

OesterPoster
06-07-2010, 08:00 AM
Just reading between the lines with all the different comments coming out of the Reds office, and I really think signability is a bigger driver this year than other years...and for that reason, I think it's Wimmers.

Mario-Rijo
06-07-2010, 08:18 AM
Just reading between the lines with all the different comments coming out of the Reds office, and I really think signability is a bigger driver this year than other years...and for that reason, I think it's Wimmers.

I agree he or Colon seems most likely IMO. Is that who you want though?

GIDP
06-07-2010, 09:13 AM
I want Brentz. I think hes one of the better hitters in the draft, and I think he turns into a good OFer in the mold of a Nick Markakis, or Brad Hawpe. Basically I see him as a very safe limited downside player.

krm1580
06-07-2010, 11:31 AM
My pick: Austin Wilson

Its a weak draft and he has far and away the best upside of any player that would fall to us. Plus with no immediate need of an OF they can afford to take a HS player and wait for them to develop.

Benihana
06-07-2010, 11:34 AM
My pick: Austin Wilson

Its a weak draft and he has far and away the best upside of any player that would fall to us. Plus with no immediate need of an OF they can afford to take a HS player and wait for them to develop.

I like this logic. The problem is that Wilson has reportedly very high demands, and I'm not sure if the Reds have the budget for that.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 11:36 AM
My pick: Austin Wilson

Its a weak draft and he has far and away the best upside of any player that would fall to us. Plus with no immediate need of an OF they can afford to take a HS player and wait for them to develop.

Sure but wouldn't you like to see someone closer to the majors? I'd rather get someone to add to the lineup to play along side Bruce than get his replacement.

Scrap Irony
06-07-2010, 11:46 AM
Bryce Brentz is my pick, though I don't believe the Reds will choose him.

I think, in a weak draft, you either go big tools or past production and hope the tools are there.

IMO, Brentz has most of the major tools needed to be a solid regular to All Star level bat at the major league level.

A quick, compact stroke that displays very, very good power, a cannon for an arm, and decent wheels (that don't project to get old too fast) are all great. His BB rate is a little too low, but most of that can be explained away as facing lower level competition and the desire to win the game with every at-bat. (Best player syndrome)

His ceiling is Moises Alou territory, IMO, and his likely resting place is Paul O'Neill (though, depending on his team, without the monster 170+ OPS+ season in 1994).

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 11:48 AM
I haven't followed the draft as closely this year as I did in years past, but if it is as "weak" as some have said, I would pick Ranaudo if his arm checked out and was signable. Two big ifs, but could provide moster value.

Benihana
06-07-2010, 12:09 PM
Bryce Brentz is my pick, though I don't believe the Reds will choose him.

I think, in a weak draft, you either go big tools or past production and hope the tools are there.

IMO, Brentz has most of the major tools needed to be a solid regular to All Star level bat at the major league level.

A quick, compact stroke that displays very, very good power, a cannon for an arm, and decent wheels (that don't project to get old too fast) are all great. His BB rate is a little too low, but most of that can be explained away as facing lower level competition and the desire to win the game with every at-bat. (Best player syndrome)

His ceiling is Moises Alou territory, IMO, and his likely resting place is Paul O'Neill (though, depending on his team, without the monster 170+ OPS+ season in 1994).

I worry about that logic. When you are that much better than anyone on your team (or in your league for that matter) teams should be pitching around you all the time. If you still have a low BB rate, that is a bit alarming.

Not saying I am against Brentz, but I think the low BB rate, particularly in the league he plays in, is a red flag.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 12:14 PM
Sure but wouldn't you like to see someone closer to the majors? I'd rather get someone to add to the lineup to play along side Bruce than get his replacement.

I'd rather the Reds take the right player, not the guy who may help soonest.

OnBaseMachine
06-07-2010, 12:15 PM
My top three in no order:

1. Bryce Brentz
2. Nick Castellanos
3. Chris Sale

Benihana
06-07-2010, 12:21 PM
I can't remember a year where Redszoners were so all over the map on who to draft. The only consensus on any player seems to be that no one wants Gary Brown, and we don't really want Brett Eibner or Kolbrin Vitek either.

On everybody else (Wimmers, McGuire, Grandal, Colon, Brentz, Choice, the Sales, Whitson, Wilson) there seems to be very little consensus.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 12:22 PM
I'd rather the Reds take the right player, not the guy who may help soonest.

There are no guarantees in life. I'd weed out projects and look towards more polished guys who project to get to Cincy sooner rather than later.

And, to be honest, the right player is probably the one who will positively contribute to the major league team soon. This team is looking good in the near term and could use guys to supplement the current roster.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 12:25 PM
There are no guarantees in life. I'd weed out projects and look towards more polished guys who project to get to Cincy sooner rather than later.

And, to be honest, the right player is probably the one who will positively contribute to the major league team soon. This team is looking good in the near term and could use guys to supplement the current roster.

Exactly.... there are no guarantees in life. It is why you take the player that your scouts tell you will be the best, even if it takes him longer.

Scrap Irony
06-07-2010, 12:32 PM
I worry about that logic. When you are that much better than anyone on your team (or in your league for that matter) teams should be pitching around you all the time. If you still have a low BB rate, that is a bit alarming.

Not saying I am against Brentz, but I think the low BB rate, particularly in the league he plays in, is a red flag.

It's not like he's hack-tastic.

His 2009 line was .465/.535/.930

His 2010: .348/.440/.636.

You really can't fault the guy, as he's almost 100 points above BA with OBP. Last season, he hit so well that his BB rate really didn't matter. Neither set of numbers are bad, per se, and it's quibbling at this high of a level, but patience isn't his strongest suit. That's all I'm saying.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 12:34 PM
Exactly.... there are no guarantees in life. It is why you take the player that your scouts tell you will be the best, even if it takes him longer.

If the scouts were actually accurate a good percentage of the time, this philosophy would make sense. The scouts have been wrong plenty of times.

Unless the longer term guy is a special type talent that they can't pass up, this team should be focused on quick to the majors type guys. College guys who can play along side the current players.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 12:42 PM
If the scouts were actually accurate a good percentage of the time, this philosophy would make sense. The scouts have been wrong plenty of times.

Unless the longer term guy is a special type talent that they can't pass up, this team should be focused on quick to the majors type guys. College guys who can play along side the current players.

The problem with this logic is, scouts are wrong all the time on both college and high school guys. So using any logic that someone is 'closer' because they went to college isn't always correct. Heck, Drew Stubbs was the 2nd college hitter taken in 2006 and to be honest, he probably has been the 2nd best hitter from that draft so far despite a sub .750 OPS in the majors and it took him over 3 years to get here.

It is all perception as to how fast one can actually help out. Jay Bruce went 12th overall and got to the majors quicker than a lot of college guys do. Its about making the right pick, not the one who may get there quickest.

KoryMac5
06-07-2010, 12:51 PM
I went with Castellanos for the pick. Draft is not very deep after the first few picks so I am hoping the Reds gamble with HS talent with lots of upside. If your going to gamble on a HS arm or position player I would rather they do it this year, when the potential burn isn't so bad.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 12:57 PM
The problem with this logic is, scouts are wrong all the time on both college and high school guys. So using any logic that someone is 'closer' because they went to college isn't always correct. Heck, Drew Stubbs was the 2nd college hitter taken in 2006 and to be honest, he probably has been the 2nd best hitter from that draft so far despite a sub .750 OPS in the majors and it took him over 3 years to get here.

It is all perception as to how fast one can actually help out. Jay Bruce went 12th overall and got to the majors quicker than a lot of college guys do. Its about making the right pick, not the one who may get there quickest.

I am obviously not saying that they need to find the next Ryan Wagner. What I am saying is that they should focus on guys who they believe to be the best guy in a group of close to the majors guys who may fit a need. If it is a HS guy then so be it. Brett Anderson was viewed to be a close to the majors guy a few years back. I said college b/c that's what they generally are, but it doesn't matter HS or college.

There are a number of scouts employed by the Reds who all have their own opinions, so unless Junior is on the board I doubt there will be one player who everyone says is the guy to draft.

In my mind, the focus should be on a guy who has a good shot to supplement the current team in 2-3 years. If there is a guy who isn't projected to do that but is a special type talent, then bring him up during the discussion. But if he isn't there, then let's try and get this team a player for the short term.

Benihana
06-07-2010, 01:00 PM
So Doug, who would you like to see?

krm1580
06-07-2010, 01:02 PM
Sure but wouldn't you like to see someone closer to the majors? I'd rather get someone to add to the lineup to play along side Bruce than get his replacement.

Small payroll teams need to have consistently productive farm systems to remain competitive. So the more talent you can stockpile, the better regardless of how close to the majors they are.

Realistically I don't see the Reds drafting Wilson because he will be expensive since he has a pretty strong commitment to Stanford and he is still raw/toolsy and carries the inherent risks associated with that.

That being said the guy has the biggest upside of any hitter not named Harper and since I don't see the Reds picking this low in the draft anytime soon I say roll the dice and try to grab the potential all-star rather than a "safe" back of the rotation/ back of the batting order type guy.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 01:04 PM
I am obviously not saying that they need to find the next Ryan Wagner. What I am saying is that they should focus on guys who they believe to be the best guy in a group of close to the majors guys who may fit a need. If it is a HS guy then so be it. Brett Anderson was viewed to be a close to the majors guy a few years back. I said college b/c that's what they generally are, but it doesn't matter HS or college.

There are a number of scouts employed by the Reds who all have their own opinions, so unless Junior is on the board I doubt there will be one player who everyone says is the guy to draft.

In my mind, the focus should be on a guy who has a good shot to supplement the current team in 2-3 years. If there is a guy who isn't projected to do that but is a special type talent, then bring him up during the discussion. But if he isn't there, then let's try and get this team a player for the short term.

Why limit yourself though? You are essentially taking away good players simply because it may take then 4 years to get to the big leagues.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 01:06 PM
So Doug, who would you like to see?

Out of who I think could have a chance of being there, here is my top 4, in no real order:
Austin Wilson
AJ Cole
Karsten Whitson
Deck McGuire

Guys I would rather not see:
Alex Wimmers
Kolbrin Vitek
Michael Choice
Christian Colon

Brentz, Castellanos, J Sale, Eibner.... all guys I wouldn't have an issue with either.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 01:07 PM
That being said the guy has the biggest upside of any hitter not named Harper and since I don't see the Reds picking this low in the draft anytime soon I say roll the dice and try to grab the potential all-star rather than a "safe" back of the rotation/ back of the batting order type guy.

Kind of a tough way to paint the situation.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 01:11 PM
Why limit yourself though? You are essentially taking away good players simply because it may take then 4 years to get to the big leagues.

Because the future is now for this team.

And I am saying that, if warranted, I'd be into a guy who is a longer term guy. But only if warranted. If he is good enough, I'd be happy to wait. But if there are guys there who are worthy of the 12th pick and can help this team soon, why bother with the projects?

krm1580
06-07-2010, 01:13 PM
Kind of a tough way to paint the situation.

That is a fair comment. I recind my 'back of the batting order' comment because there are some guys that I think are pretty good hitters that will be available. I stand by the 'back of the rotation' comment though. I don't see a lot a great arms in this draft.

REDblooded
06-07-2010, 01:14 PM
Gimme Brentz... Please. I've been a good fan.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 01:14 PM
Because the future is now for this team.

And I am saying that, if warranted, I'd be into a guy who is a longer term guy. But only if warranted. If he is good enough, I'd be happy to wait. But if there are guys there who are worthy of the 12th pick and can help this team soon, why bother with the projects?

Even the best of the best pick, isn't going to help the Reds of 2010 or 2011. You don't know the team needs by then other than its not going to need a RF or a 1B. Outside of that, you know nothing of its needs.

As for projects, I think you are confusing 'developing a high school player', which regardless of talent is going to take time because 99.9% of 19 and 20 year olds just aren't ready to play in the majors with 'taking a raw player and teaching him to play baseball rather than just be an athletic freak'. The latter player is a project. Those guys don't often get selected in the top half of the first round.

Kc61
06-07-2010, 01:15 PM
Why limit yourself though? You are essentially taking away good players simply because it may take then 4 years to get to the big leagues.

Your logic makes sense, but I see the Reds going with near-ready talent in the first round.

The team is so hungry to win in the short-term, I think the Reds likely will focus on guys who can help soon.

Obviously, the risk is that you pass up better high school talent for lesser college talent.

I wouldn't be shocked if the Reds took a high schooler, but I don't expect it.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 01:16 PM
Even the best of the best pick, isn't going to help the Reds of 2010 or 2011. You don't know the team needs by then other than its not going to need a RF or a 1B. Outside of that, you know nothing of its needs.

As for projects, I think you are confusing 'developing a high school player', which regardless of talent is going to take time because 99.9% of 19 and 20 year olds just aren't ready to play in the majors with 'taking a raw player and teaching him to play baseball rather than just be an athletic freak'. The latter player is a project. Those guys don't often get selected in the top half of the first round.

I'd be shooting/hoping for 2012 ETA.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 01:21 PM
I'd be shooting/hoping for 2012 ETA.

So what position are you looking at then? How do you know we will even need that guy at that time?

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 01:28 PM
So what position are you looking at then? How do you know we will even need that guy at that time?

Depends on who is out there...I would probably look at any position except 1B or someone locked into RF, which probably wouldn't happen. But if that RFer was an absolute stud, of course I'd go there.

I always love getting pitching in the draft. Love it. If a CFer was there who forced my hand, I'd take him. But I wouldn't look there first. I'd absolutely love a legit SS who my people thought would stay there. 2B sure. Catching, probably if there was someone we thought was worth it.

It's not so much what position I'd be looking for as much as the position I wouldn't be looking for. Unless a first baseman was there who was like a Teix type talent, I wouldn't even send my people to look at anyone at that position who wasn't able to move off of it.

krm1580
06-07-2010, 01:43 PM
I'd be shooting/hoping for 2012 ETA.

Unfortunately I think Mike Leake has distorted the reality of how long it actually takes for someone to help out at the major league level. There are very, very few guys that can contribute at a major league level even out of college, within 2 years

Look at the college guys taken at the top 10 of the 2007 draft, which means they had a least 2 full years in the minors.

#1 Price - 8-2 2.29 ERA
#4 Moskos - Still in minors
#5 Wieters - OPSing .644
#6 Detwiler - ERA of 5.00
#7 LaPorta - OPSing .567
#8 Weathers - Still in minors

Outside of Price, who was one of the absolute elite prospects in the last decade and the #1 overall pick, most of these guys are not doing much. And that is not to say they won't. I think Wieters will be a star. But my point is the whole notion that you draft guys from college because they are "close" is somewhat flawed and I would not skip over guys because they are further away in high school.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 01:56 PM
Unfortunately I think Mike Leake has distorted the reality of how long it actually takes for someone to help out at the major league level. There are very, very few guys that can contribute at a major league level even out of college, within 2 years

Look at the college guys taken at the top 10 of the 2007 draft, which means they had a least 2 full years in the minors.

#1 Price - 8-2 2.29 ERA
#4 Moskos - Still in minors
#5 Wieters - OPSing .644
#6 Detwiler - ERA of 5.00
#7 LaPorta - OPSing .567
#8 Weathers - Still in minors

Outside of Price, who was one of the absolute elite prospects in the last decade and the #1 overall pick, most of these guys are not doing much. And that is not to say they won't. I think Wieters will be a star. But my point is the whole notion that you draft guys from college because they are "close" is somewhat flawed and I would not skip over guys because they are further away in high school.

2005 had Braun, Zimmerman, Tulo and Garza.

2006 had Longoria, Lincecum and Joba.

2008 had Posey, Smoak, Davis, Perry and a few other guys knocking on the door right now.

2009 had Leake, Strasburg, Storen with Minor killing it in AA and a potential call up this year.

And I didn't really say "college", I am saying to lean towards the closer to the majors guys. I'll take Jay Bruce over Ryan Wagner every day of the week, but I also wouldn't mind supplementing this team soon.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 02:00 PM
2005 had Braun, Zimmerman, Tulo and Garza.

2006 had Longoria, Lincecum and Joba.

2008 had Posey, Smoak, Davis, Perry and a few other guys knocking on the door right now.

2009 had Leake, Strasburg, Storen with Minor killing it in AA and a potential call up this year.

And I didn't really say "college", I am saying to lean towards the closer to the majors guys. I'll take Jay Bruce over Ryan Wagner every day of the week, but I also wouldn't mind supplementing this team soon.

But the point is, you can't tell who is going to get there soon. So you take the guy who will be the best player at the end of the day and live with it.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 02:07 PM
But the point is, you can't tell who is going to get there soon. So you take the guy who will be the best player at the end of the day and live with it.

Getting there soon is something that is always said about certain players. You know who is advanced and who isn't. Stubbs wasn't a get there soon guy at the time of the draft, but Leake definitely was. Of course each could have been wrong but that's true with every rating.

But when you say "take the guy who will be the best player at the end of the day and live with it" you know that's an impossibility, especially with HS guys. If it was possible then sure, I'm gonna take the perennial all-star from HS over the middle of the road college pitcher who gets there in 2011. But that doesn't happen. If the scouting consensus was that a HS 3B was going to be the next Zimmerman and they were sure of that and the choice was between him and a guy who the consensus was a college back of the rotation guy, well now that's a discussion. But when you are talking about guys all ranked 10-15, well I'd believe that the odds of one being better than the other in the long run is about 50-50.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 02:13 PM
Getting there soon is something that is always said about certain players. You know who is advanced and who isn't. Stubbs wasn't a get there soon guy at the time of the draft, but Leake definitely was. Of course each could have been wrong but that's true with every rating.

But when you say "take the guy who will be the best player at the end of the day and live with it" you know that's an impossibility, especially with HS guys. If it was possible then sure, I'm gonna take the perennial all-star from HS over the middle of the road college pitcher who gets there in 2011. But that doesn't happen. If the scouting consensus was that a HS 3B was going to be the next Zimmerman and they were sure of that and the choice was between him and a guy who the consensus was a college back of the rotation guy, well now that's a discussion. But when you are talking about guys all ranked 10-15, well I'd believe that the odds of one being better than the other in the long run is about 50-50.

At the end of the day you listen to what your scouts tell you. If a scout says that the high school kid is better by 1% than the college kid, I take the high school kid every day of the week and twice on Sunday without thinking about it. There is no sure bet in the draft at any draft position. It is why less than 25% of first rounders make it. You take the guy your scouts say will be the best player, even if its by an absolutely minuscule amount.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 02:18 PM
At the end of the day you listen to what your scouts tell you. If a scout says that the high school kid is better by 1% than the college kid, I take the high school kid every day of the week and twice on Sunday without thinking about it. There is no sure bet in the draft at any draft position. It is why less than 25% of first rounders make it. You take the guy your scouts say will be the best player, even if its by an absolutely minuscule amount.

Let me ask you this...if you are Walt and your scouts are saying that the two choices that you should be thinking about are a college SS/LF/3B/pick your position and a HS 1B who will never move positions and they are 51/49 in favor of the 1B as ending up with a more successful career (which does not mean that the college kid will be unsuccessful), is that where you are heading with your pick?

krm1580
06-07-2010, 02:19 PM
Getting there soon is something that is always said about certain players. You know who is advanced and who isn't. Stubbs wasn't a get there soon guy at the time of the draft, but Leake definitely was. Of course each could have been wrong but that's true with every rating.

But when you say "take the guy who will be the best player at the end of the day and live with it" you know that's an impossibility, especially with HS guys. If it was possible then sure, I'm gonna take the perennial all-star from HS over the middle of the road college pitcher who gets there in 2011. But that doesn't happen. If the scouting consensus was that a HS 3B was going to be the next Zimmerman and they were sure of that and the choice was between him and a guy who the consensus was a college back of the rotation guy, well now that's a discussion. But when you are talking about guys all ranked 10-15, well I'd believe that the odds of one being better than the other in the long run is about 50-50.

I think if Austin Wilson did not have the commitment to Stanford and the potential financial baggage that came along with it, I believe he would be taken in the top 5 picks.

He certainly is not the closest guy to the majors and he is a higher risk for not making the majors at all, but at the end of the day if you were asking who the guy with biggest potential impact would be, I would have him right behind Harper and Tallion

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 02:23 PM
Let me ask you this...if you are Walt and your scouts are saying that the two choices that you should be thinking about are a college SS/LF/3B/pick your position and a HS 1B who will never move positions and they are 51/49 in favor of the 1B as ending up with a more successful career (which does not mean that the college kid will be unsuccessful), is that where you are heading with your pick?

Walt isn't making the pick or likely having anything to do with it. The scenario you presented isn't valid though, as there isn't a first baseman in this draft with that profile.

But yeah, if he were, I would probably go with the high school first baseman. Joey Votto is likely a FA by the time he is ready anyways and if Alonso is still around at that point, we have trade bait if needed.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 02:38 PM
Walt isn't making the pick or likely having anything to do with it. The scenario you presented isn't valid though, as there isn't a first baseman in this draft with that profile.

But yeah, if he were, I would probably go with the high school first baseman. Joey Votto is likely a FA by the time he is ready anyways and if Alonso is still around at that point, we have trade bait if needed.

Walt will have the final approval on the pick. He isn't going to log on to mlb.com to find out who they are taking.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 02:39 PM
I think if Austin Wilson did not have the commitment to Stanford and the potential financial baggage that came along with it, I believe he would be taken in the top 5 picks.

He certainly is not the closest guy to the majors and he is a higher risk for not making the majors at all, but at the end of the day if you were asking who the guy with biggest potential impact would be, I would have him right behind Harper and Tallion

Austin Wilson doesn't make sense for this team. They need guys who can help soon, not lottery tickets. The Reds have a nice window right now, it would be nice to get a guy or 2 who profile to contribute during that time.

RED VAN HOT
06-07-2010, 02:40 PM
My arm chair analysis...

This is a good year for a team picking 12th to select for need. I think the Reds are inclined to think near term and select someone likely to be able to help by 2012.
That eliminates any HS players who might be available at 12.

Pitching is an organizational strength. I don't believe they will look there first.

The Reds will not take a middle infielder who lacks plus defensive skills. I believe the Reds have a sufficient pipeline of players who fit that need.

Corner infield is set through 2012. The Reds are unlikely to spend the money required for Cox if he is going to wait until 2013 to move up. Also, they have other candidates in the minors who remain viable.

Minor league catching is looking pretty good. I don't think the Reds want another Alonso type negotiation for a catcher who might not be able to stick at the position.

To me the need is a power hitting corner OF who plays above average defense. That makes Choice the best pick. I think there is a fifty percent chance he will be available. If he is not, then Brentz is next in line.

If neither is available, then I think the Reds go back to pitching rather than take a HS OF'er. I would say McGuire third and Wimmers fourth. Either could be converted to a reliever and help in the bullpen fairly quickly.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 02:41 PM
Walt will have the final approval on the pick. He isn't going to log on to mlb.com to find out who they are taking.

Of course he isn't, but he is going to listen to exactly what Chris Buckley tells him. Buckley controls the pick.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 02:42 PM
Austin Wilson doesn't make sense for this team. They need guys who can help soon, not lottery tickets. The Reds have a nice window right now, it would be nice to get a guy or 2 who profile to contribute during that time.

You can't possibly know who can help soon and who can't. This isn't the NFL or the NBA. Even the best prospects from each draft take 2 years to reach the majors.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 02:43 PM
Of course he isn't, but he is going to listen to exactly what Chris Buckley tells him. Buckley controls the pick.

I think Buckely controls the pick based upon what Walt tells him he is thinking. Walt wants guys who are x, y or z, Buckely takes that into account. If Buckley says that he and his team want to take a guy who Walt has problems with, I bet there is a discussion.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 02:45 PM
I think Buckely controls the pick based upon what Walt tells him he is thinking. Walt wants guys who are x, y or z, Buckely takes that into account. If Buckley says that he and his team want to take a guy who Walt has problems with, I bet there is a discussion.

You can keep thinking. I have seen multiple sources that basically say the GM just lets the scouting director do his job. The GM hires a scouting director because he trusts him to make the right decisions. If the GM didn't like what the scouting director did, he wouldn't keep him around.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 02:45 PM
You can't possibly know who can help soon and who can't. This isn't the NFL or the NBA. Even the best prospects from each draft take 2 years to reach the majors.

I am saying guys who profile to help soon. What I have read on this guy Wilson is that he is a raw talent. He doesn't profile to help soon. Then I stay away unless there is an overwhelming majority from my scouts that tell me that this is the guy that we have to have. In the current Cincy situation.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 02:47 PM
I am saying guys who profile to help soon. What I have read on this guy Wilson is that he is a raw talent. He doesn't profile to help soon. Then I stay away unless there is an overwhelming majority from my scouts that tell me that this is the guy that we have to have.

If the Reds had the money, I bet you he would be the guy your scouts would all tell you that he is the guy you have to have.

At #12, especially in this draft, you aren't getting anyone near a sure bet. Its a weak draft and even in strong drafts you aren't getting any sure bets here.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 02:48 PM
You can keep thinking. I have seen multiple sources that basically say the GM just lets the scouting director do his job. The GM hires a scouting director because he trusts him to make the right decisions. If the GM didn't like what the scouting director did, he wouldn't keep him around.

The scouts scout, the GM manages the organization. If the scouts wanted to pick a catcher 3 times in a row in the top 10 I would imagine the GM would want to talk about that a bit.

Maybe certain GMs allow the scouting director some rope, but if the GM disagrees with the direction of the pick he would be an idiot to keep his mouth shut. He needs to get comfortable with the selection.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 02:54 PM
The scouts scout, the GM manages the organization. If the scouts wanted to pick a catcher 3 times in a row in the top 10 I would imagine the GM would want to talk about that a bit.

Maybe certain GMs allow the scouting director some rope, but if the GM disagrees with the direction of the pick he would be an idiot to keep his mouth shut. He needs to get comfortable with the selection.

The GM has very little to do with the minor leagues. Very, very little. He puts other people in place to deal with that. His job is the major league team first and foremost. Everything else is very far down the totem pole for him.

The scouting director isn't going to take 3 catchers in a row. He just isn't. But it won't be because the GM said not to, its because he isn't stupid. He knows he has rosters to fill out in the system.

Its not certain GM's.... its almost all of them. Not sure where you get your information from on who runs the draft, but its pretty invalid. Scouting directors run it. The GM approves the budget they get to sign players, but beyond that, the scouting director (Chris Buckley in our case) is the one making the decisions based on what his scouts tell him.

krm1580
06-07-2010, 03:04 PM
Austin Wilson doesn't make sense for this team. They need guys who can help soon, not lottery tickets. The Reds have a nice window right now, it would be nice to get a guy or 2 who profile to contribute during that time.

Honestly what player in the draft do you see stepping into the starting lineup or starting rotation right now and being an upgrade over what we currently have?

The only place this roster needs significant help right now is the bullpen and I cringe at the idea of taking a relief pitcher with the #12 pick.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 03:09 PM
The GM has very little to do with the minor leagues. Very, very little. He puts other people in place to deal with that. His job is the major league team first and foremost. Everything else is very far down the totem pole for him.

The scouting director isn't going to take 3 catchers in a row. He just isn't. But it won't be because the GM said not to, its because he isn't stupid. He knows he has rosters to fill out in the system.

Its not certain GM's.... its almost all of them. Not sure where you get your information from on who runs the draft, but its pretty invalid. Scouting directors run it. The GM approves the budget they get to sign players, but beyond that, the scouting director (Chris Buckley in our case) is the one making the decisions based on what his scouts tell him.

This is fairly consistent with what I believe to be the case:


While the on-field scouting is done, he said, the Reds are determining certain players financial demands. That could influence the pick, but won't be the deciding factor, Buckley said.

"(Genral manager) Walt (Jocketty) and Bob Castellini have told me everyone's in play," Buckley said. "(Thursday) when we have the last piece of information, they may hear some thing that changes their mind."

Buckley was hired by former general manager Wayne Krivsky, but said the team's draft approach hasn’t changed under Jocketty.

"I think they had pretty similar philosophies, bring in as much talent as you can, you get the best guys with the best make-up," Buckley said. "Walt's been in and out, just like Wayne was. (Jocketty) is totally up to date. He's looked at a lot of films, he's heard a lot of scouts. They're very similar in their approach."

http://www.700wlw.com/script2/print.php?page=/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html&article_id=3775838&feed_id=265471

Walt and Bob told him that everyone is in play. So he is taking direction from the higher-ups as to what he should and shouldn't be thinking. That draft maybe everyone is in play, the next one maybe not so much.

Walt and Bob may hear things that change their minds.

Walt has a philosophy. Walt has spoken to scouts and is up to date.



That's all I am saying. The GM has to speak to the scouting team and say what he is thinking is best for the organization. The scouts don't sit there by themselves and give the name to Walt 5 minutes before the announcement. He lets them do their job based upon his philosophy, guidance and direction.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 03:10 PM
Honestly what player in the draft do you see stepping into the starting lineup or starting rotation right now and being an upgrade over what we currently have?

The only place this roster needs significant help right now is the bullpen and I cringe at the idea of taking a relief pitcher with the #12 pick.

I never said right now. Ever.

mdccclxix
06-07-2010, 03:11 PM
Knowing now that Cox wants 6 million, I'd kind of like that pick back. :D I'll take Sale if he's there.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 03:18 PM
This is fairly consistent with what I believe to be the case:



http://www.700wlw.com/script2/print.php?page=/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html&article_id=3775838&feed_id=265471

Walt and Bob told him that everyone is in play. So he is taking direction from the higher-ups as to what he should and shouldn't be thinking. That draft maybe everyone is in play, the next one maybe not so much.

Walt and Bob may hear things that change their minds.

Walt has a philosophy. Walt has spoken to scouts and is up to date.



That's all I am saying. The GM has to speak to the scouting team and say what he is thinking is best for the organization. The scouts don't sit there by themselves and give the name to Walt 5 minutes before the announcement. He lets them do their job based upon his philosophy, guidance and direction.

All that says is that Walt and Bob set the budget. That is it.

mdccclxix
06-07-2010, 03:19 PM
That said, how come no one likes Dylan Covey around here? Strong HS RHP with two excellent pitches and good feel, comparisons to Billingsley, what's not to like?

Scrap Irony
06-07-2010, 03:24 PM
All that says is that Walt and Bob set the budget. That is it.

That's certainly not the way I read it. Jocketty (and Castellini) have input and are informed at virtually every step of the way. They have first dibs on specific people that are "out"; that is, you're not gonna pick X, Y, or Z even if they're the best choice, Mr. Reynolds.

Is Jocketty telling Reynolds whom to pick? No, probably not per se.

But he's certainly in charge and will okay the pick before it gets picked.

That's what edabbs has said, and that's what that article backs up.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 03:31 PM
All that says is that Walt and Bob set the budget. That is it.

Not sure about that. Especially since setting a budget would be "Here's $6MM, go at it". This is more about a specific pick and the money tied to that specific pick.

I am sure this is like any other business. Bob and Walt let these guys do their thing and then they will need to pitch their thoughts and decisions on early picks to them. Then Walt (and maybe Bob) will oversee and decide if they are comfortable with their direction.

I bet the rest of the draft involves the scouting team making more and more of the decisions (outside of someone materially above slot that they want to take), but the early pick(s) have to involve the GM more. It just has to. Jocketty has to be on board with that short list going into tonight.

GIDP
06-07-2010, 03:35 PM
I think Buckley has a lot of power. If I had to guess I say the only thing Walt tells him is the budget. Walt probably doesnt know a lot about these guys before the draft.

krm1580
06-07-2010, 04:13 PM
I never said right now. Ever.

When you said the Reds have a window right now and need someone who can contribute, I assumed you meant someone who would contribute within the window that exists right now. Sorry I misunderstood what you meant.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 04:15 PM
When you said the Reds have a window right now and need someone who can contribute, I assumed you meant someone who would contribute within the window that exists right now. Sorry I misunderstood what you meant.

When I said window, I was speaking of the window that exists with these guys currently in place.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 04:20 PM
That's certainly not the way I read it. Jocketty (and Castellini) have input and are informed at virtually every step of the way. They have first dibs on specific people that are "out"; that is, you're not gonna pick X, Y, or Z even if they're the best choice, Mr. Reynolds.

Is Jocketty telling Reynolds whom to pick? No, probably not per se.

But he's certainly in charge and will okay the pick before it gets picked.

That's what edabbs has said, and that's what that article backs up.

Reynolds isn't the scouting director. Chris Buckley is.

As for the article, all I can gather from it is that they approved everyone from a financial standpoint. Of course we all know that is bogus, but they aren't going to publicly admit that and be called cheap. I am sure Buckley runs his information by Jocketty. Buckley is still making the decisions though.

Scrap Irony
06-07-2010, 04:33 PM
Brain fart on my part.

But the reasoning is correct.

Jocketty (and Castellini) tell Buckley who's off limits. (Ergo, even if Buckley wanted to pick those guys, he couldn't.) That means the first decision is Jocketty's, not Buckley's.

Once Buckley picks, Jocketty has final say-so (as the article infers).

I don't see how you'd get anything else out of it.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 04:38 PM
Brain fart on my part.

But the reasoning is correct.

Jocketty (and Castellini) tell Buckley who's off limits. (Ergo, even if Buckley wanted to pick those guys, he couldn't.) That means the first decision is Jocketty's, not Buckley's.

Once Buckley picks, Jocketty has final say-so (as the article infers).

I don't see how you'd get anything else out of it.

The 'off limits' part screams 'we can't afford him', not 'don't think about drafting him because I think he sucks'. Which goes back to money, which is what I have been saying Jocketty has been a part of all along.

Scrap Irony
06-07-2010, 04:56 PM
Sure Jocketty has control of the purse strings. He also has control of the draft picks for, according to the article, major attitude questions, work ethic questions, and his own evaluation.

In other words, Buckley may think Player A is the best pick, but Jocketty doesn't like reports of his inability to get along with teammates. So Player A is axed.

Buckley then thinks Player B is next best. But Jocketty might think reports of a questionable work ethic mean he'll be a career journeyman.

In other words, Jocketty is in charge and Buckley must run his pick through Jocketty.

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 05:03 PM
Sure Jocketty has control of the purse strings. He also has control of the draft picks for, according to the article, major attitude questions, work ethic questions, and his own evaluation.

In other words, Buckley may think Player A is the best pick, but Jocketty doesn't like reports of his inability to get along with teammates. So Player A is axed.

Buckley then thinks Player B is next best. But Jocketty might think reports of a questionable work ethic mean he'll be a career journeyman.

In other words, Jocketty is in charge and Buckley must run his pick through Jocketty.
Nowhere in that article did I see anything suggesting anything close to Jocketty having that kind of power (in the sense that he doesn't use it, clearly he could have it if he wanted to... he is the GM, but nowhere does it come close to saying he actually does any of that stuff).

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 05:04 PM
Nowhere in that article did I see anything suggesting anything close to Jocketty having that kind of power (in the sense that he doesn't use it, clearly he could have it if he wanted to... he is the GM, but nowhere does it come close to saying he actually does any of that stuff).

Why would Walt be looking at a lot of film and speaking with a lot of scouts if he didn't weigh in on the selection?

dougdirt
06-07-2010, 05:11 PM
Why would Walt be looking at a lot of film and speaking with a lot of scouts if he didn't weigh in on the selection?

To make sure his people are doing their jobs. Lets remember, the draft that was written about, 2008, was the first one under Jocketty. He was probably doing a little more hands on given he didn't have a great feel for his staff at that point still.

edabbs44
06-07-2010, 05:19 PM
http://http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/06/04/fanhouse-tv-gm-vs-scout-in-mlb-draft/

Clip from Fanhouse on GM and scout involvement in a draft.

Kingspoint
06-07-2010, 06:55 PM
I remember wanting Kyle Gibson. Obviously, I was wrong with Leake being nothing short of sensational.

Kyle Gibson is currently tearing things up in the minors, though...

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15231678?nclick_check=1

"We don't fast track players; players fast track themselves," Twins general manager Bill Smith said. "When they demonstrate they have played their way out of one league, when a player demonstrates that ability, we'll push him to the next level.

"We try to challenge our players. We want them in a league where they're challenged and not in over their heads. (Gibson) was ready for the next step, so we promoted him" to Double-A.

Gibson is 7-2 with a 2.81 earned-run average with 67 strikeouts and 20 walks in 75 1/3 innings combined at Class AA New Britain and Class A Fort Myers.

Kingspoint
06-07-2010, 06:58 PM
Just a little more on that....

Gibson was 3-0 with a 1.37 ERA since a promotion to New Britain. But he was rocked for six earned runs in 5 2/3 innings Saturday night against Binghamton.

"I'm not sure if I'm ahead, behind or on pace," Gibson said before that start. "I've never been given a timeline."

PuffyPig
06-07-2010, 07:14 PM
I remember wanting Kyle Gibson. Obviously, I was wrong with Leake being nothing short of sensational.

Kyle Gibson is currently tearing things up in the minors, though...

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15231678?nclick_check=1

"We don't fast track players; players fast track themselves," Twins general manager Bill Smith said. "When they demonstrate they have played their way out of one league, when a player demonstrates that ability, we'll push him to the next level.

"We try to challenge our players. We want them in a league where they're challenged and not in over their heads. (Gibson) was ready for the next step, so we promoted him" to Double-A.

Gibson is 7-2 with a 2.81 earned-run average with 67 strikeouts and 20 walks in 75 1/3 innings combined at Class AA New Britain and Class A Fort Myers.


Gibson could easily turn out to be the better pick. FWIW.

Benihana
06-07-2010, 07:39 PM
Final Prediction Time- Speed Round: Post who you think the Reds will pick in one word (no multiple selections allowed.) I'll start:

Colon

OnBaseMachine
06-07-2010, 07:39 PM
Final Prediction Time- Speed Round: Post who you think the Reds will pick in one word (no multiple selections allowed.) I'll start:

Colon

Workman.

GIDP
06-07-2010, 07:40 PM
Colon as well.

Kingspoint
06-07-2010, 07:42 PM
A. J. Cole

Mario-Rijo
06-07-2010, 07:46 PM
Matt Harvey, just a hunch.

SoTxRedsFan
06-07-2010, 07:48 PM
Workman

edabbs44
06-08-2010, 11:24 AM
2005 had Braun, Zimmerman, Tulo and Garza.

2006 had Longoria, Lincecum and Joba.

2008 had Posey, Smoak, Davis, Perry and a few other guys knocking on the door right now.

2009 had Leake, Strasburg, Storen with Minor killing it in AA and a potential call up this year.

And I didn't really say "college", I am saying to lean towards the closer to the majors guys. I'll take Jay Bruce over Ryan Wagner every day of the week, but I also wouldn't mind supplementing this team soon.

Oleny has his Insider article up talking about our discussion from yesterday regarding the drafting of need. He says that teams are now looking to draft players who can help in the short term, which is in contrast to the traditional logic.

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog?name=olney_buster&id=5263262

Benihana
06-08-2010, 11:36 AM
Funny that Grandal didn't even make the cut for this poll, as everyone assumed he'd be gone in the Top 5.

Mario-Rijo
06-08-2010, 12:23 PM
Funny that Grandal didn't even make the cut for this poll, as everyone assumed he'd be gone in the Top 5.

I left room for him with the "other" spot and told folks to add "their guy". I guess he was no ones 1st choice. ;)