PDA

View Full Version : Who is Redszone's #7 prospect?



camisadelgolf
10-31-2011, 05:49 PM
Who is Redszone's #7 prospect?

#1 C Devin Mesoraco
#2 1B/OF Yonder Alonso
#3 C Yasmani Grandal
#4 SS Billy Hamilton
#5 SS Zack Cozart
#6 RHP Dan Corcino

camisadelgolf
10-31-2011, 05:52 PM
We're getting short on options for the next poll. Feel free to make suggestions for players you'd consider selecting soon. Otherwise, it'll be up to me, and it's very rare for anyone to trust my decision-making in regards to anything. Then again, it's not an important life decision, so maybe I can handle it.

mace
10-31-2011, 06:09 PM
Torreyes for now.

For later, might I suggest Didi Gregorius, J.C. Sulbaran and Tucker Barnhart?

Kc61
10-31-2011, 06:12 PM
I went for Box over Stephenson here because of his track record in the minor leagues. I think it's a close call between the two. IMO they should be picks 7 and 8 in some order.

For the next round, I'd suggest Juan Duran. Ryan Lamarre. David Vidal. Josh Smith. Devin Lohman (I know, not a RedsZone fave). Didi Gregorius. Brodie Green. Josh Fellhauer. Ryan Wright. Sean Buckley. Gabriel Rosa. Henry Rodriguez. And I agree, Sulbaran and Barnhart.
Denis Phipps?

bubbachunk
10-31-2011, 06:35 PM
Soto, I really hope we don't have a RP go this early with our farm system....

Kc61
10-31-2011, 06:43 PM
Soto, I really hope we don't have a RP go this early with our farm system....

And I hope Soto doesn't go this early based on one year which can turn out to be an aberration. And even with that year, he's now a first baseman which requires a whole lot of offense to be an MLB regular.

It just depends on your vantage point.

I hope we just pick the best prospect. Who I think is Boxberger.

HokieRed
10-31-2011, 06:53 PM
Yorman. I like upside.

JaxRed
10-31-2011, 06:57 PM
I'd try and keep the list manageable. Maybe add 5 names.

mth123
10-31-2011, 06:58 PM
Sappelt. Future Reds CF.

crazybob60
10-31-2011, 07:03 PM
Going with Boxberger here at this spot. I think he will be able to step into nicely iinto the Reds bullpen and contribute at some point towards the second half of next season and be a stalwart down there for years to come.

bubbachunk
10-31-2011, 07:26 PM
And I hope Soto doesn't go this early based on one year which can turn out to be an aberration. And even with that year, he's now a first baseman which requires a whole lot of offense to be an MLB regular.

It just depends on your vantage point.

I hope we just pick the best prospect. Who I think is Boxberger.

One season?? He struggled a bit in the Florida state league which is known to suppress offense but other wise has been a solid bat who broke out on the potential we all saw from the beginning.

fearofpopvol1
10-31-2011, 08:26 PM
Going Sappelt here. He's at least an awesome 4th OF, but probably a starter. I like his approach a lot.

REDblooded
10-31-2011, 09:18 PM
And I hope Soto doesn't go this early based on one year which can turn out to be an aberration. And even with that year, he's now a first baseman which requires a whole lot of offense to be an MLB regular.

It just depends on your vantage point.

I hope we just pick the best prospect. Who I think is Boxberger.

And in the same breath you make an argument for Boxberger...

REDblooded
10-31-2011, 09:21 PM
Soto, Stephenson, Torreyes and in that order...

Blows my mind that people are still picking Boxberger when RP's just don't have enough impact on the game to choose even a high-upside RP'r over high-ceiling hitters/sp...

dougdirt
10-31-2011, 09:34 PM
Yorman. I like upside.

Same for me. I think we will be voting him for a while though.

AWA85
10-31-2011, 09:35 PM
Give me Yorman's superstar upside over the rest at this pick!

dougdirt
10-31-2011, 09:36 PM
And I hope Soto doesn't go this early based on one year which can turn out to be an aberration. And even with that year, he's now a first baseman which requires a whole lot of offense to be an MLB regular.


I don't have Soto here... but how soon do we forget that Soto hit .340/.362/.558 as a 19 year old between Billings and Dayton? Yes, he hasn't come close to anything like that since, but he isn't a "one year" guy. He has always had the tools and has shown them before too.

Kc61
11-01-2011, 12:45 AM
I don't have Soto here... but how soon do we forget that Soto hit .340/.362/.558 as a 19 year old between Billings and Dayton? Yes, he hasn't come close to anything like that since, but he isn't a "one year" guy. He has always had the tools and has shown them before too.

Nor should we forget Soto's .645 OPS in 2009 or his .778 in 2010. His career OPS is under .800.

The fact that he did well at age 19 isn't particularly important at this stage.

He needs to show up at AAA next year to get into the top ten IMO. I think some folks may be giving his 2011 season too much importance.

Superdude
11-01-2011, 01:11 AM
Nor should we forget Soto's .645 OPS in 2009 or his .778 in 2010. His career OPS is under .800.

The fact that he did well at age 19 isn't particularly important at this stage.

He needs to show up at AAA next year to get into the top ten IMO. I think some folks may be giving his 2011 season too much importance.

His numbers are pretty similar to 2010, except for the power. That's been projected out of his game since day one, and after the wrist injury, 2011 seems like a pretty natural progression. There's still questions about his game, but I don't think regression is in order just because he improved.

I went with Stephenson here though. Can't overlook his potential much longer

fearofpopvol1
11-01-2011, 02:07 AM
The Stephenson pick here is crazy to me. The guy hasn't pitched 1 inning in the minors. I know part of the prospect ranking is projectability and all, but it seems a bit high to rank him.

camisadelgolf
11-01-2011, 02:09 AM
The Stephenson pick here is crazy to me. The guy hasn't pitched 1 inning in the minors. I know part of the prospect ranking is projectability and all, but it seems a bit high to rank him.
What if he had pitched one inning and struck out the side?

lollipopcurve
11-01-2011, 07:02 AM
Sappelt

dougdirt
11-01-2011, 09:27 AM
The Stephenson pick here is crazy to me. The guy hasn't pitched 1 inning in the minors. I know part of the prospect ranking is projectability and all, but it seems a bit high to rank him.

What is more important, 20 innings thrown or scouting reports?

TRF
11-01-2011, 09:35 AM
Nor should we forget Soto's .645 OPS in 2009 or his .778 in 2010. His career OPS is under .800.

The fact that he did well at age 19 isn't particularly important at this stage.

He needs to show up at AAA next year to get into the top ten IMO. I think some folks may be giving his 2011 season too much importance.

I believe, and doug would know for sure, but didn't Soto, like Alonso have a hamate bone removed?

lollipopcurve
11-01-2011, 09:41 AM
but didn't Soto, like Alonso have a hamate bone removed?

Yes he did.

Mario-Rijo
11-01-2011, 09:53 AM
Give me Yorman's superstar upside over the rest at this pick!

It's a fair argument but I cannot help but look at his lack of maturity being a major hurdle for him right now. He'll never reach superstar status unless he changes his attitude at least some extent. Talent alone is never enough, skill is based on hard work and dedication to ones craft, right now he seems to be living off of his talent alone.

Besides it would be a wasted vote for me to go that route right now since he has no shot at winning and I'm done throwing away my votes on these lists.

dougdirt
11-01-2011, 10:17 AM
It's a fair argument but I cannot help but look at his lack of maturity being a major hurdle for him right now. He'll never reach superstar status unless he changes his attitude at least some extent. Talent alone is never enough, skill is based on hard work and dedication to ones craft, right now he seems to be living off of his talent alone.

Besides it would be a wasted vote for me to go that route right now since he has no shot at winning and I'm done throwing away my votes on these lists.

He is 18 years old. I think that the only reason we are hearing so much about his attitude problems is because we have a guy close to the situation who posts on the board frequently (redsof72). The issue was brought up a time or two in the papers, but I think it is a bit overblown because of the board having a poster close to the situation who can bring it up often, while we don't have someone posting about other 18 year olds because those guys, sans Torreyes, aren't playing for teams that get any coverage at all. Dayton has had a grand total of TWO 18 year olds play more than a handful of games for them in their entire history. Both just happened to be on the team this past season. One guy is very mature. The other guy isn't as mature. But I think we need to keep in mind that aside from Torreyes, Yorman is the youngest every day player to be in Dayton in the franchise's history. Of course he is going to be seen as immature, he is far and away one of the youngest players they have ever had. Dayton has had 8 teenagers get 300 PA's in a season for them and three of them were on the 2011 Dragons.

fearofpopvol1
11-01-2011, 01:47 PM
What is more important, 20 innings thrown or scouting reports?

Stephenson was considered a great pick for the Reds, but he wasn't a can't miss kind of pick. High school pitchers are question marks and it seems hard to rank a guy who is still a large unknown that high IMO.

klw
11-01-2011, 02:25 PM
For some reason I just felt compelled to look up birthdates for Yorman and Stephenson. Yorman is about 6 months older 8.15.92 vs 2.24.93.

Edd Roush
11-01-2011, 02:47 PM
Stephenson was considered a great pick for the Reds, but he wasn't a can't miss kind of pick. High school pitchers are question marks and it seems hard to rank a guy who is still a large unknown that high IMO.

I am one of the posters who voted for Stephenson. I can't speak for everyone, but the reason for my pick was because I decide who to vote for based upon who I would be most upset if the Reds' traded.

Stephenson has ace potential and the scouting reports were glowing. I have read on this board a couple of times that if last year's draft wasn't so deep, he would have been a lock to be a top 10 pick.

Stephenson's stuff has potential to be great. Boxberger also has good stuff. That being said, I like a starting pitcher's impact on 200 innnigs over a reliever's impact in less than 100. As for Soto, I like his potential, but I don't like his inability to take a walk.

I like Soto and Boxberger a lot, but I would be more upset if the Reds trade Stephenson (even though that can't officially happen for a while).

texasdave
11-01-2011, 02:58 PM
What was the reasoning behind moving Boxberger to the pen? He began his first year with the organization as a starter and was successful. Any chance he moves back into a starting role? Wouldn't it be prudent for an organization to keep a pitcher in a starter's role as long as possible?

Kc61
11-01-2011, 03:26 PM
What was the reasoning behind moving Boxberger to the pen? He began his first year with the organization as a starter and was successful. Any chance he moves back into a starting role? Wouldn't it be prudent for an organization to keep a pitcher in a starter's role as long as possible?

Everybody can't be a starter.

I must say, as a member of RedsZone for many years, it puzzles me how little regard people have for relief pitching.

It's such a critical part of the game. Starters, even the best of them, usually don't go more than 7 innings on a good day. The bullpen is often the determinative factor.

I can understand people not wanting to drop $10 million a year on a closer.

But now it's no good if the team turns a prospect into a reliever? Where exactly should the relievers come from?

End of rant.

lollipopcurve
11-01-2011, 03:39 PM
I must say, as a member of RedsZone for many years, it puzzles me how little regard people have for relief pitching.

It's such a critical part of the game. Starters, even the best of them, usually don't go more than 7 innings on a good day. The bullpen is often the determinative factor.

I can understand people not wanting to drop $10 million a year on a closer.

But now it's no good if the team turns a prospect into a reliever? Where exactly should the relievers come from?

End of rant.

Agree 100% with this.

marcshoe
11-01-2011, 03:44 PM
Maybe we're not as deep here as last year, but at this point everyone has question marks. It's a matter of which questions you think have the best chance of being answered positively. Stephenson and Yorman are both too young to solidly project right now, but both have more potential value than Boxberger and, imho, Soto. The only thing that bothers me about Soto is that we're looking at a first base prospect with power who has been inconsistent year-to-year. I like him a lot, but I like the two kids' potential more.

So I don't see any of these (or Sappelt or Torreyes, both of whom I'd likely pick over a reliever) as being a particularly baseless pick.

texasdave
11-01-2011, 03:45 PM
x

TRF
11-01-2011, 03:49 PM
Maybe we're not as deep here as last year, but at this point everyone has question marks. It's a matter of which questions you think have the best chance of being answered positively. Stephenson and Yorman are both too young to solidly project right now, but both have more potential value than Boxberger and, imho, Soto. The only thing that bothers me about Soto is that we're looking at a first base prospect with power who has been inconsistent year-to-year. I like him a lot, but I like the two kids' potential more.

So I don't see any of these (or Sappelt or Torreyes, both of whom I'd likely pick over a reliever) as being a particularly baseless pick.

Soto has NOT been inconsistent. he was injured. big difference. When healthy, he mashed at every level. His injury is not a chronic thing, just sapped his power for a time.

He's a beast in the making IMO and Votto's eventual replacement if traded.

Kc61
11-01-2011, 04:21 PM
When healthy, he mashed at every level.


Not really.

In 2007 in the Gulf Coast League his OPS was .809.
In 2008 at Billings (71 plate appearances) his OPS was 1.169.
In 2008 at Dayton his OPS was .843.
In 2009 at Sarasota his OPS was .645.
In 2010 at Lynchburg his OPS was .778.
In 2011 at Carolina his OPS was .904.
In 2011 at Louisville (18 plate appearances) his OPS was 1.033.
His lifetime OPS is .794.

Soto did great at Billings in 2008 for 71 plate appearances.
Soto did great in 2011.

Otherwise he was ok, whether injured or not. Sub-.850 OPS numbers for a first baseman in the minor leagues are just not compelling.

Doesn't mean he can't succeed. But we should proceed with caution.

dougdirt
11-01-2011, 04:31 PM
Stephenson was considered a great pick for the Reds, but he wasn't a can't miss kind of pick. High school pitchers are question marks and it seems hard to rank a guy who is still a large unknown that high IMO.

High school pitchers aren't any more risky these days than college ones.

dougdirt
11-01-2011, 04:40 PM
Everybody can't be a starter.

I must say, as a member of RedsZone for many years, it puzzles me how little regard people have for relief pitching.

It's such a critical part of the game. Starters, even the best of them, usually don't go more than 7 innings on a good day. The bullpen is often the determinative factor.

I can understand people not wanting to drop $10 million a year on a closer.

But now it's no good if the team turns a prospect into a reliever? Where exactly should the relievers come from?

End of rant.

Pay attention to what you just said.... that two innings (which likely comes from two different pitchers) is more important than seven. Here is how I feel about a bullpen.... it is great to have a dominant one. But the individual parts within the bullpen aren't nearly as important as an individual part of a rotation.

I guess the question is that is it worth risking a a potentially very good starting pitcher to get a guy to the Majors quicker as a reliever, even if he will make a very good one?

TRF
11-01-2011, 05:48 PM
Not really.

In 2007 in the Gulf Coast League his OPS was .809.
In 2008 at Billings (71 plate appearances) his OPS was 1.169.
In 2008 at Dayton his OPS was .843.
In 2009 at Sarasota his OPS was .645.
In 2010 at Lynchburg his OPS was .778.
In 2011 at Carolina his OPS was .904.
In 2011 at Louisville (18 plate appearances) his OPS was 1.033.
His lifetime OPS is .794.

Soto did great at Billings in 2008 for 71 plate appearances.
Soto did great in 2011.

Otherwise he was ok, whether injured or not. Sub-.850 OPS numbers for a first baseman in the minor leagues are just not compelling.

Doesn't mean he can't succeed. But we should proceed with caution.

Yes really.

In 2007 an .809 OPS in the GCL, pitcher friendly league. In 2008 he posted a .920 OPS across 2 levels as a 19 year old. 2009 FSL AND injured hamate bone. 2010 1st year after injury, power slowly comes back. 2011 back to where he was power wise in 2008. He'll be 23 at AAA next year (turns 23 in feb.) just for comparison sake, Alonso and Votto were both at AAA. but Frazier, Cozart, Stubbs, not so much (Stubbs and Frazier barely 2 weeks worth of games.)

He needs to walk more, but the hit ability and the power that he has... he's for real.

Scrap Irony
11-01-2011, 06:10 PM
I went Torreyes.

Youth and performance, along with a bat that looks like it will be powerful enough, speed aplenty, and outstanding defense at second base.

He may be small, but should eventually fill out (as do almost all males between the ages of 18-21) at least a little.

What I like best about him, however, is that he's been praised time and again for his work ethic and his willingness to do whatever it takes to be great. It doesn't hurt that he made that Dayton team last season into one of the most interesting and winning teams in the minors.

He doesn't K much at all, so his BB rate, while low, shouldn't be too bad as he progresses. He's going to be BA driven, and his BA profiles as a 300 hitter.

I could see a 2B Gold Glover with a pretty consistent line of 300/340/450 for a good long time, with some years where he may challenge for the BA title.

Kc61
11-01-2011, 08:50 PM
Pay attention to what you just said.... that two innings (which likely comes from two different pitchers) is more important than seven. Here is how I feel about a bullpen.... it is great to have a dominant one. But the individual parts within the bullpen aren't nearly as important as an individual part of a rotation.

I guess the question is that is it worth risking a a potentially very good starting pitcher to get a guy to the Majors quicker as a reliever, even if he will make a very good one?

As you know, I did not say that two innings are more important than seven.

But some posters think that a team has to devote all its pitching resources to the rotation. As if the bullpen will get stocked out of thin air.

I think it is appropriate that the Reds have decided that one of its top pitching resources should be groomed as a closer. Everyone can't start.

And Boxberger appears very close to being a very good major league reliever and potential closer for the team. So I will continue to vote for him until he is selected.

Betterread
11-01-2011, 09:13 PM
As you know, I did not say that two innings are more important than seven.

But some posters think that a team has to devote all its pitching resources to the rotation. As if the bullpen will get stocked out of thin air.

I think it is appropriate that the Reds have decided that one of its top pitching resources should be groomed as a closer. Everyone can't start.

And Boxberger appears very close to being a very good major league reliever and potential closer for the team. So I will continue to vote for him until he is selected.

I think he should have been given at least 1/2 a season more as a starter to see if he could have developed as a starter. The Reds messed around with Zach Stewart as a reliever before they traded him and I think they didn't scout him properly and they missed on a good starter. I hope they are doing the right scouting with Boxberger. I think he has a repetoire suited for starting and having him pitch with just two or three of his pitches as a reliever will waste some of his talent.

REDblooded
11-02-2011, 12:41 AM
Nor should we forget Soto's .645 OPS in 2009 or his .778 in 2010. His career OPS is under .800.

The fact that he did well at age 19 isn't particularly important at this stage.

He needs to show up at AAA next year to get into the top ten IMO. I think some folks may be giving his 2011 season too much importance.

Nor should we forget Boxberger getting shelled in 2010... But you did.

REDblooded
11-02-2011, 12:44 AM
Everybody can't be a starter.

I must say, as a member of RedsZone for many years, it puzzles me how little regard people have for relief pitching.

It's such a critical part of the game. Starters, even the best of them, usually don't go more than 7 innings on a good day. The bullpen is often the determinative factor.

I can understand people not wanting to drop $10 million a year on a closer.

But now it's no good if the team turns a prospect into a reliever? Where exactly should the relievers come from?

End of rant.


Dude... Look at WAR. RP's don't measure up no matter how good they are...

Where should 1b come from? Failed 3b/SS's? Does it make their inherent position suddenly more valuable than the one they couldn't hack?

Nope.

REDblooded
11-02-2011, 12:48 AM
As you know, I did not say that two innings are more important than seven.

But some posters think that a team has to devote all its pitching resources to the rotation. As if the bullpen will get stocked out of thin air.

I think it is appropriate that the Reds have decided that one of its top pitching resources should be groomed as a closer. Everyone can't start.

And Boxberger appears very close to being a very good major league reliever and potential closer for the team. So I will continue to vote for him until he is selected.


Congrats on your opinion... It doesn't make it right though... If the Reds suddenly decide tomorrow that Grandal can't hack it as a catcher and move him to 1b, does it make him equally or more valuable than Mesoraco even if they put up similar numbers?

not really close.

Because one position is more valuable than the other.

Mario-Rijo
11-02-2011, 07:54 AM
He is 18 years old. I think that the only reason we are hearing so much about his attitude problems is because we have a guy close to the situation who posts on the board frequently (redsof72). The issue was brought up a time or two in the papers, but I think it is a bit overblown because of the board having a poster close to the situation who can bring it up often, while we don't have someone posting about other 18 year olds because those guys, sans Torreyes, aren't playing for teams that get any coverage at all. Dayton has had a grand total of TWO 18 year olds play more than a handful of games for them in their entire history. Both just happened to be on the team this past season. One guy is very mature. The other guy isn't as mature. But I think we need to keep in mind that aside from Torreyes, Yorman is the youngest every day player to be in Dayton in the franchise's history. Of course he is going to be seen as immature, he is far and away one of the youngest players they have ever had. Dayton has had 8 teenagers get 300 PA's in a season for them and three of them were on the 2011 Dragons.

I understand that and give it it's due. I'm not saying he can't still be all we have hoped for him since he got here. But I'm not gonna ignore the valuable information I have gotten and seen myself 1st hand about Yorman and give it it's due. We have seen a potential major red flag IMO and this ranking should reflect that. And it seems like many others agree.

dougdirt
11-02-2011, 08:35 AM
I understand that and give it it's due. I'm not saying he can't still be all we have hoped for him since he got here. But I'm not gonna ignore the valuable information I have gotten and seen myself 1st hand about Yorman and give it it's due. We have seen a potential major red flag IMO and this ranking should reflect that. And it seems like many others agree.

Eh, I am not going to consider the attitude of an 18 year old a "Major Red Flag". It is simply too early for that IMO. Others can disagree, we all have our opinions.

TRF
11-02-2011, 10:46 AM
Eh, I am not going to consider the attitude of an 18 year old a "Major Red Flag". It is simply too early for that IMO. Others can disagree, we all have our opinions.

If I keep agreeing with doug, someone check my backyard for a pod.

way too soon to use maturity as an issue. You don't ignore it, but it doesn't detract from prospect status. now, if he was 24, maybe then it is an issue.

Kc61
11-02-2011, 01:31 PM
Congrats on your opinion... It doesn't make it right though... If the Reds suddenly decide tomorrow that Grandal can't hack it as a catcher and move him to 1b, does it make him equally or more valuable than Mesoraco even if they put up similar numbers?

not really close.

Because one position is more valuable than the other.

Yes, generally the starting pitcher position is more valuable than reliever, even closer.

But that doesn't mean that ALL good pitching prospects should be starters.

And it doesn't mean that a good closer prospect is unimportant.

reds1869
11-02-2011, 01:38 PM
way too soon to use maturity as an issue. You don't ignore it, but it doesn't detract from prospect status. now, if he was 24, maybe then it is an issue.

I agree. Homer Bailey is proof that a player can improve their attitude. We tend to forget we are watching young men grow up before our eyes. All of those stupid things the rest of us do at the same age? These guys get to do it under public scrutiny.

*BaseClogger*
11-02-2011, 02:40 PM
Yes, generally the starting pitcher position is more valuable than reliever, even closer.

But that doesn't mean that ALL good pitching prospects should be starters.

And it doesn't mean that a good closer prospect is unimportant.

If a good pitching prospect can be both an effective starting pitcher and an effective relief pitcher, that pitching prospect should be utilized as a starting pitcher 100% of the time. That's the argument many of us are framing...

TRF
11-02-2011, 02:44 PM
If a good pitching prospect can be both an effective starting pitcher and an effective relief pitcher, that pitching prospect should be utilized as a starting pitcher 100% of the time. That's the argument many of us are framing...

Papelbon says hi. so does Feliz. Joba says hello.

all three were groomed as starters, all three are in the pen. They could have been effective starters. they are much better in relief. IMO it is a matter of mental makeup more than talent.

dougdirt
11-02-2011, 02:54 PM
Papelbon says hi. so does Feliz. Joba says hello.

all three were groomed as starters, all three are in the pen. They could have been effective starters. they are much better in relief. IMO it is a matter of mental makeup more than talent.

And I still think that the last two should have been starters and would have been of more value to their teams had they been developed properly as starting pitchers and remained there.

Yes, both guys have better ERA's than they would have had as a starter, but I would take 185 innings of an ERA a few notches higher than 65 innings with an ERA a few notches lower. It is much easier to find quality relievers than quality starters.

*BaseClogger*
11-02-2011, 04:50 PM
I thought Papelbon couldn't stay healthy as a starting pitcher? That pretty much debunks his case.

If all three of those guys could be effective starting pitchers then they should be starting pitchers...

*BaseClogger*
11-02-2011, 04:51 PM
Yes, both guys have better ERA's than they would have had as a starter, but I would take 185 innings of an ERA a few notches higher than 65 innings with an ERA a few notches lower. It is much easier to find quality relievers than quality starters.

Most pitchers lose ~half a run to a whole run off their ERA when they are moved the bullpen or something like that. I think?

JaxRed
11-03-2011, 09:18 AM
KC61 and I disagree on paying Cordero. He would pay him 10 million a year and I wouldn't. But, if a Boxberger saves you that 10 million..... that makes him a very valuable guy. Even more valuable if you can flip him for prospects in 5 years.

The only reason I haven't gone for Boxberger has been his inconsistency over the years.

texasdave
11-03-2011, 10:14 AM
It's not like the Reds system has quality prospects starters everywhere you look. None in the top five. Corcino at six and Stephenson (who has yet to throw his first pitch as a professional) at seven. Both at lower levels. Then it could be another gap before another starter makes the list. If you have a system chock full of starting prospects then, fine, move one to the pen. That's not the Reds system. From High A on up the people they had starting were, as a hole, nothing to get excited about.

Kc61
11-03-2011, 10:16 AM
KC61 and I disagree on paying Cordero. He would pay him 10 million a year and I wouldn't. But, if a Boxberger saves you that 10 million..... that makes him a very valuable guy. Even more valuable if you can flip him for prospects in 5 years.

The only reason I haven't gone for Boxberger has been his inconsistency over the years.

I agree that if Box or any other young reliever (or young player) can save you a big salary, that's a good thing. I think Box eventually can do that, although I don't think he's ready to close games in 2012.

One quibble - I wouldn't pay Coco $10 M per year. I previously said on here that I max out at about $7.5 per year with Cordero.

And of course if there is a good cheaper closer, I'd go for it. I'm not wedded to Coco, just wedded to having a good closer.

JaxRed
11-03-2011, 11:48 AM
I'm not wedded to Coco.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.....

RedsManRick
11-03-2011, 12:49 PM
Papelbon says hi. so does Feliz. Joba says hello.

all three were groomed as starters, all three are in the pen. They could have been effective starters. they are much better in relief. IMO it is a matter of mental makeup more than talent.

I tend to agree and would posit that if their teams felt they could have been comparably effective as starters over 200 IP, they'd be using them that way. A good starter is much harder to come by than a good reliever and teams know this. But is a good starter harder to come by than an elite reliever?

There's definitely a bias in the .5 ERA adjustment. Teams simply don't make starters out of guys who they don't think have a chance of succeeding there. So you can't fairly just take a reliever and add half a run to his ERA and claim that's how he'd be as a starter. The pool of pitchers who display that .5 difference are the ones who teams felt had a good shot at succeeding. It selects out those who teams felt were not worth the attempt.

I don't know about the other guys, but I know there were concerns about Joba's ability to get deep enough in to games a starter. There was also a concern that his stuff dropped off significantly in that role. In some ways, he reminds of Chapman. It may not be appropriate to look at the standard ERA adjustment if Joba is not comparable to pitchers who usually make the switch.

I think this can get clouded though because of how things play out sometimes. A guy who came up in the minors as a starter is ready, but there isn't initially a spot in the rotation for him, so he starts in the bullpen. There was always some doubt about his eventual role, so there's not really any push-back at the time -- or it was simply an issue of getting some value from him and not holding him back. He then does quite well in relief. In subsequent seasons, rotation opportunities arise. However, the "fit" questions haven't gone away and now there's a risk associated with the move, as you'd have to bring in somebody to fill his spot in the pen. Your options there are comprised of:
- Expensive FA who is supposedly a "sure thing" in terms of performance, but who basically closes the door to the relief spot, which could leave the reliever-cum-starter in limbo of cost somebody else on your team a job
- Cheap FA who is likely a step down in performance, but who could be displaced easily if the starting experiment doesn't work out
- Cheap in-house option who either represents a likely step down in performance or who is a very comparable guy (minor league starter looking to break-in)

So unless the guy blows the doors off in a limited trial (ST, spot starts, etc.), the team sticks with what it knows works and what causes the least amount of uncertainty.

I'm as liable as anyone to assume I know better and that said great reliever could have been more valuable as a good starter. And I cite the above dynamic as evidence that the team is making a decision based on risk-aversion rather than value-maximization. But I think it's probably worth giving teams the benefit of the doubt. The Red Sox were desperate for SP, had a closer in waiting and had a very smart brain trust. If they had any belief that Papelbon could have converted and performed well, I think they would have tried. Maybe it's a mental thing. Maybe it's a physical thing. None of us really knows. But the answer is sort of beside the point.

Another case to think of is this:

Pitcher A could be a 4.00 ERA starter or a 3.00 ERA closer. Pitcher B could be a 4.00 ERA starter or a 3.75 ERA closer. Therefore, the team uses pitcher A as a closer. It may not maximize his individual value in a bubble, but it's the best move for the team. Obviously that's simplified, but essentially the notion is that the guy would be harder to replace as a very good closer than as a pretty good starter.

lollipopcurve
11-03-2011, 01:15 PM
Based on... assertion? I would posit that if their teams felt they could have been comparably effective as starters over 200 IP, they'd be using them that way. A good starter is much harder to come by than a good reliever.

Perhaps the case you're making is this:

Pitcher A could be a 4.00 ERA starter or a 3.00 ERA closer. Pitcher B could be a 4.00 ERA starter or a 3.75 ERA closer. Therefore, the team uses pitcher A as a closer. It may not maximize his individual value in a bubble, but it's the best move for the team. Obviously that's simplified, but essentially the notion is that the guy would be harder to replace as a very good closer than as a pretty good starter.

There's definitely a bias in the .5 ERA adjustment as teams don't make starters out of guys who they don't think have a chance of succeeding. So you can't fairly just take a reliever and add half a run to his ERA and claim that's how he'd be as a starter.

I don't know about the other guys, but I know there were concerns about Joba's ability to get deep enough in to games a starter. There was also a concern that his stuff dropped off significantly in that role. In some ways, he reminds of Chapman. You're not looking at your standard ERA adjustment but rather a much larger one. From a process standpoint, I think you see how it plays out pretty regularly. When the guy is ready, there isn't initially a spot in the rotation for him, so he starts in the bullpen. There was always some doubt about his eventual role, so there's not really any push-back. He does well there. In subsequent seasons, rotation opportunities arise. However, the "fit" questions haven't gone away and now there's a risk associated with the move, as you have to bring in somebody to fill his spot in the pen. So unless the guy blows the doors off in a limited trial (ST, spot starts, etc.), the team sticks with what it knows works.

I'm as liable as anyone to assume I know better and that said reliever could have been a good starter. And I cite the above dynamic as evidence that the team is making a decision based on risk-aversion rather than value-maximization. But I think it's probably worth giving teams the benefit of the doubt. The Red Sox were desperate for SP, had a closer in waiting and had a very smart brain trust. If they had any belief that Papelbon could have converted and performed well, I think they would have tried.

Solid post.