PDA

View Full Version : JJ Cooper on the Reds Pitching



medford
01-17-2011, 08:44 AM
This kind of belongs here, kind of belongs in the minor league format, but since its more about the development of current major leaguers, I'll throw it here.

Good article, though the last paragraph irked me a bit. I get where the guy was coming from, but it seems like he de-values the Reds staff a little bit short of where I think some of them really are.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/majors/news/2011/2611139.html

camisadelgolf
01-17-2011, 09:21 AM
This really stood out to me:

From the day that 1995 draftee Brett Tomko was traded after the 1999 season (for Ken Griffey Jr.) until Johnny Cueto and Bailey arrived for good in 2008, Cincinnati developed only one homegrown pitcher who made more than 20 starts for the Reds. That was righthander Jose Acevedo, who went 16-21, 5.59 in his four years with the Reds.
What an amazing feat.

TheNext44
01-17-2011, 09:44 AM
This kind of belongs here, kind of belongs in the minor league format, but since its more about the development of current major leaguers, I'll throw it here.

Good article, though the last paragraph irked me a bit. I get where the guy was coming from, but it seems like he de-values the Reds staff a little bit short of where I think some of them really are.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/majors/news/2011/2611139.html

The devaluing came from "an opposing team's front office executive.". Remember what those guys said about Chapman last season.

Spitball
01-17-2011, 09:45 AM
From the day that 1995 draftee Brett Tomko was traded after the 1999 season (for Ken Griffey Jr.) until Johnny Cueto and Bailey arrived for good in 2008, Cincinnati developed only one homegrown pitcher who made more than 20 starts for the Reds. That was righthander Jose Acevedo, who went 16-21, 5.59 in his four years with the Reds.

I believe that was an organizational/Jim Bowden plan for several years. The Reds developed relief pitchers like Scott Sullivan. Converted prospects from starters to relievers like Scott Williamson. And traded for bullpen prospects like Danny Graves. Then, believing it cheaper and easier to sign castoff starters, they would sign guys like Pete Harnisch and Jimmy Haynes.

It wasn't the best plan ever.

Johnny Footstool
01-17-2011, 09:45 AM
I believe that was an organizational/Jim Bowden plan for several years. The Reds developed relief pitchers like Scott Sullivan. Converted prospects from starters to relievers like Scott Williamson. And traded for bullpen prospects like Danny Graves. Then, believing it cheaper and easier to sign castoff starters, they would sign guys like Pete Harnisch and Jimmy Haynes.

It wasn't the best plan ever.

The old "Gully can fix 'em" plan.

redsmetz
01-17-2011, 10:20 AM
You want to see brutal, look at their 2001 draft, the Jeremy Sowers debacle. Not one draftee reached the major league level anywhere (except Sowers who didn't sign with us). What an utter waste. The next couple of years, while getting a plum like Votto, weren't tremendously deep either (note, I haven't figured what the average number is from year to year).

Dan
01-17-2011, 11:30 AM
The old "Gully can fix 'em" plan.

It worked with Schourek and they thought it would work with anyone. Sad.

camisadelgolf
01-17-2011, 12:17 PM
It worked with Schourek and they thought it would work with anyone. Sad.
It didn't work only on Schourek, though. Even Jimmy Haynes managed to provide a season of respectability.

Check out this list of pitchers:
Elmer Dessens
Osvaldo Fernandez
Pete Harnisch
Kent Mercker
Steve Parris
Mike Remlinger
Pete Schourek
Ron Villone
Gabe White
Paul Wilson
Mark Wohlers

The Reds paid that group about $46MM and got 34.1 WAR (b-r) out of it. That's a huge bargain. And it's also not to mention all the players that were obtained in trading them, including Felipe Lopez, Matt Belisle, Rob Bell, Denny Neagle, Michael Tucker (although Bret Boone was traded away in the deal that netted those last three).

Those sure were some dark days, but who knows how much worse it could have been if it weren't for Gullett?

Mario-Rijo
01-17-2011, 12:34 PM
In his new job, (Mack) Jenkins quickly bagged the tandem starter idea. In his mind, if you want to develop a big league starter, it makes more sense to get him used to the routine of starting every fifth day.

"Part of developing a Travis Wood is developing a routine that begins as soon as he begins to play in pro ball," Jenkins said. "You can't do that when you start one week and the next week you're relieving.

"Over 100 minor league starts you endure so much. Coaching is important, but the game teaches you so much. Cold weather, warm weather, rain delays. All kind of X-factors, (and) if you're rushed you don't get those. We don't want you to experience these things for the first time in the big leagues."


Aren't they still jerking guys around like this? Chapman, Stewart, Boxberger etc. Way to go there Mack.

camisadelgolf
01-17-2011, 12:59 PM
Aren't they still jerking guys around like this? Chapman, Stewart, Boxberger etc. Way to go there Mack.
I wouldn't say they're 'jerking them around' in that sense. In recent years, when the Reds have moved someone to relieving, it has been due to keeping their innings down and putting less stress on the arm, which a huge part of what the article is about.

Griffey012
01-17-2011, 01:22 PM
Aren't they still jerking guys around like this? Chapman, Stewart, Boxberger etc. Way to go there Mack.

Actually they are trying to figure out how to use the guys to best fit the major league squad. Chapman is not proven as a starter but proved himself as a reliever. Why not use him in the bullpen? I am glad we are past the days of playing for "next year."

As far as the other two, switching from a starter to a reliever and vice versa is not nearly the same as the tandem system. The tandem system was an absolute joke.

RED VAN HOT
01-17-2011, 03:26 PM
I agree with everything in the article. The unlikely signing of an ace and the resulting need to develop a TOR pitcher from the sea of middle of rotation arms has been discussed on RZ. By my count the Reds started 9 different pitchers last year. I would expect them to do the same this year. I think the strength of such depth was properly acknowledged.

To me, the transformation of the Reds pitching development can best be attributed to having an owner and GM on the same page with respect to developing a long range plan. In short, their shared objective is to develop a deep organization that can restore a winning tradition to Cincinnati.... and they are willing to take time to get there. In the past, GM's were under pressure to produce a contender within a short time on a limited budget... a near impossible task. That necessitated bargain basement shopping and a kind of lottery approach to player development. They signed players cheaply, sifted through the crowd, and rushed those that showed promise. By contrast, the current regime is willing to pay for top prospects and be patient in allowing them to master each level before advancing.