PDA

View Full Version : Who is Redszone's #1 prospect? 2013



texasdave
12-10-2012, 11:05 PM
And without further adieu, it is time to get this ball rolling. I started with 16 prospects just because. If anyone wants a name added just post it in the thread. These polls will run for 3 days for the first 20 prospects and then 2 days for the remainder. As always these polls are public. Any and all suggestions are welcome. I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes by starting this. And away we go! :beerme:

texasdave
12-10-2012, 11:16 PM
Two things of note:

1) After looking at the list, it will be bumped up to 20 prospects next time.

2) Dougdirt's Top 16 were blatantly stolen to start things off. (Even though he was wrong by omitting Drew Cisco.) :)

So, that means five more names will be added for the next poll. Suggestions welcome.

mace
12-11-2012, 12:17 AM
Steve Rogers? You mean Chad, aka Sharky?

(Hate for my first comment to be second-guessing our distinguished moderator. Thanks for getting this going, td.)

texasdave
12-11-2012, 12:18 AM
Steve Rogers? You mean Chad, aka Sharky?

(Hate for my first comment to be second-guessing our distinguished moderator. Thanks for getting this going, td.)

You are right. I looked directly at Chad and typed in Steve. Who is Steve Rogers anyway?

mace
12-11-2012, 12:19 AM
You are right. I looked directly at Chad and typed in Steve. Who is Steve Rogers anyway?

Won 22 for the Expos the year I graduated from college.

Edit: Make that lost 22. But he was their ace. For quite a while. Franchise leader in wins.

texasdave
12-11-2012, 12:20 AM
Won 22 for the Expos the year I graduated from college.

Ah, the old Montreal pitcher. Showing my age here, I guess.

The DARK
12-11-2012, 12:22 AM
Glad to see the tradition back underway. Looking over the Reds farm is always a good, low-stress way to keep baseball on the mind in the offseason.

#1 has to Billy Hamilton for me. Stephenson is creeping up there with excellent stuff and results at a young age, but you can't really argue when the fastest player to grace the game in decades made as many strides at the plate as Billy did this past season.

11larkin11
12-11-2012, 12:28 AM
You are right. I looked directly at Chad and typed in Steve. Who is Steve Rogers anyway?

That'd be this guy

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kF-JVSRcmI0/Tq15hOuzKXI/AAAAAAAAA-c/-Tv4jbkM0Ew/s1600/Captain+America+movie.jpeg

texasdave
12-11-2012, 12:29 AM
I am a sucker for a starting pitcher with above average stuff and an upper-90s fastball. What can I say?

texasdave
12-11-2012, 12:30 AM
That'd be this guy

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kF-JVSRcmI0/Tq15hOuzKXI/AAAAAAAAA-c/-Tv4jbkM0Ew/s1600/Captain+America+movie.jpeg

Is that the old Montreal Expos, 70s-style uniform? Awesome. :laugh:

dougdirt
12-11-2012, 12:36 AM
I went with Hamilton, but I would also be willing to accept Robert Stephenson as an answer. Both guys are elite level prospects. Higher ceiling with Stephenson than with Hamilton, which is actually kind of crazy to say considering I could see Hamilton compete for some MVP's if things go perfect for him. Hamilton gets the nod for still having such a high ceiling, but a much higher floor.

Superdude
12-11-2012, 01:58 AM
Little riskier pick, but I had to go Stephenson. Saw him twice this summer and the arm strength is just staggering. He looks like he has a good chance to be one of those rare breeds that can just steamroll lineups with pure stuff.

Steve4192
12-11-2012, 09:03 AM
Hamilton for me.

I love me some Stephenson, but the guy only has eight games of full-season ball under his belt. It's WAY too soon to pencil him in as the Reds top prospect, no matter how talented he is.

texasdave
12-11-2012, 09:19 AM
Hamilton for me.

I love me some Stephenson, but the guy only has eight games of full-season ball under his belt. It's WAY too soon to pencil him in as the Reds top prospect, no matter how talented he is.

I am curious as to how people rank prospects so I have a several questions. Everyone has their own thoughts on ranking prospects, so there is no right or wrong, IMO.

1) Is it too soon to rank him the number 2 prospect? Because that is very likely where he is going to end up.

2) With only 8 games under his belt, what is the highest he should be ranked?

3) If you were trading him, would you place a top-prospect value on him?

marcshoe
12-11-2012, 09:34 AM
When I saw this I wondered who would pick Stephenson. I went with the obvious but wouldn't be surprised if Stephenson had the better career.

mdccclxix
12-11-2012, 09:50 AM
100 mph fastball with good secondary stuff or the craziest legs ever? both could be ephemeral. Proximity to majors vs chances the tools will play up. Hrmm. Desire to be great seems to be a wash. I think this should be a tie.

mdccclxix
12-11-2012, 10:03 AM
Kids can throw 100 more often nowadays, and its probable that early reports on this stuff can be inaccurate to some extent. Billy's speed is way ahead of the curve...it's probably more special than a 19 y/o who can throw 100.

When you project Billy Hamilton having success in the majors with his skill set, it's a bizarre world we would be living in. Players and coaches have tried to relate the tales. You can't explain what it means to watch someone score from 2nd on an infield fly. I read that recently. Even outfielders lose their nerve when Billy's in the game. The timing for everything is off the charts.

So, even though Stephenson is so awesome and at his peak would be probably be worth more than Hamilton's peak, I think if Hamilton does dominate in his certain way then the overall effect will be massive, especially for a 3-4 year stretch in his mid-20's. I thought for sure I'd vote Stephenson, but I'll go with Hamilton because of the unexpected entertainment factor.

Steve4192
12-11-2012, 10:48 AM
I am curious as to how people rank prospects so I have a several questions. Everyone has their own thoughts on ranking prospects, so there is no right or wrong, IMO.

1) Is it too soon to rank him the number 2 prospect? Because that is very likely where he is going to end up.

2) With only 8 games under his belt, what is the highest he should be ranked?

3) If you were trading him, would you place a top-prospect value on him?

Generally speaking, I rank the guys with high-minors experience who project as starting eight/rotation caliber major leaguers above kids with little to no experience regardless of how talented those kids are. On the flip side, I rank the inexperienced kids with upside over guys with high minors experience but only project as bench/bullpen fodder in the majors.

1. I would probably rank him second since I have serious doubts about Corcino/Cingrani sticking as starters and Gregorius being anything more than a bench glove. I might rank Corcino above him since my only real concern with him is his size and not any of his baseball-related skills.

2. Depends on who else is in the organization. In some organizations, I could definitely see him as their #1 prospect. In others, he might not crack the top five.

3. You bet your ass I would. If the Reds were a rebuilding team, I doubt I would consider trading him at all. With the Reds currently being contenders, I would consider trading him if he brought me a return that could significantly help the 2013-2015 Reds.

Steve4192
12-11-2012, 10:51 AM
100 mph fastball with good secondary stuff or the craziest legs ever? both could be ephemeral. Proximity to majors vs chances the tools will play up. Hrmm. Desire to be great seems to be a wash. I think this should be a tie.

I disagree.

Hamilton has proven his desire to be great by significantly improving his game year after year. Stephenson might have the same level of desire, but he hasn't proven it yet. It's going to take a few years to draw a bead on just how badly he wants to improve.

mdccclxix
12-11-2012, 10:57 AM
I disagree.

Hamilton has proven his desire to be great by significantly improving his game year after year. Stephenson might have the same level of desire, but he hasn't proven it yet. It's going to take a few years to draw a bead on just how badly he wants to improve.

I take it you mean to elevate Hamilton and not ding Stephenson, right? He's gotten praise for his makeup and I came away impressed each time I've listened or read an interview.

Steve4192
12-11-2012, 11:05 AM
I take it you mean to elevate Hamilton and not ding Stephenson, right? He's gotten praise for his makeup and I came away impressed each time I've listened or read an interview.

I don't mean to ding him at all. But getting praise for your makeup and actually using that makeup to deliver tangible results are two very different things.

Billy has delivered tangible results. He has shown MASSIVE improvements since the day he was drafted. Billy's makeup is no longer a matter of opinion. Stephenson's makeup might be just as great, or even greater, but he has yet to prove anything. All we have to go on is scout's opinions, and scouts have been known to be wrong.

mdccclxix
12-11-2012, 11:23 AM
I don't mean to ding him at all. But getting praise for your makeup and actually using that makeup to deliver tangible results are two very different things.

Billy has delivered tangible results. He has shown MASSIVE improvements since the day he was drafted. Billy's makeup is no longer a matter of opinion. Stephenson's makeup might be just as great, or even greater, but he has yet to prove anything. All we have to go on is scout's opinions, and scouts have been known to be wrong.

I hear what you're saying. The two are actually starting from different places. Billy was very raw and those guys often wash out. When they don't they deserve a lot of credit and attention. I have always liked Billy's desire and ability to adjust.

It is likely going to be a while before we see Stephenson have to face the upward pressure of equal or better competition. Plus, he was drafted with a much more complete profile and has only had a little time to prove his wares (in which time he exceeded many people's idea). Saying his desire or ability to adjust isn't as strong as Hamilton's isn't the best way to judge Stephenson. I'll give him credit for developing into what he is so far, and coupled with the positive things I've gathered, consider him just as likely to improve and push to be great as Hamilton is.

Steve4192
12-11-2012, 11:38 AM
Saying his desire or ability to adjust isn't as strong as Hamilton's isn't the best way to judge Stephenson.

That's not what I said


Stephenson's makeup might be just as great, or even greater, but he has yet to prove anything

My point is we don't KNOW anything about Stephenson's makeup yet. All we have to go on are opinions. I look forward to seeing whether those opinions prove out in the coming years. I hope they do.

mdccclxix
12-11-2012, 11:47 AM
There is the desire to be great, and there are the tools to be great. You can't teach speed or 100mph. I think Billy and Stephenson are legit when it comes to makeup and desire. And the tools are there for both. Granted, Billy has been in the system for 2 more years, so we know even better about him. But Stephenson has been given high marks in the same regard and he's succeeded quite well already.

nate1213
12-11-2012, 11:52 AM
Had to go with Stephenson. They both have potential to be huge game changers in the big leagues, but I take a potential TOR pitcher with a huge arm every time.

klw
12-11-2012, 12:32 PM
I voted for Robert Stevenson but I think Robert Stephenson will be better. I was back an forth between Hamilton and Stephenson and will be quite happy to see either in the top two slots.

texasdave
12-11-2012, 01:06 PM
I voted for Robert Stevenson but I think Robert Stephenson will be better. I was back an forth between Hamilton and Stephenson and will be quite happy to see either in the top two slots.

Duly noted. I will pay stricter attention to details next time. At least this is up and running. :laugh:

camisadelgolf
12-11-2012, 04:05 PM
I voted for Robert Stevenson but I think Robert Stephenson will be better. I was back an forth between Hamilton and Stephenson and will be quite happy to see either in the top two slots.
I picked Steve Rogers in part because I think he'll be better than Chad Rogers.

dougdirt
12-11-2012, 04:08 PM
Kids can throw 100 more often nowadays, and its probable that early reports on this stuff can be inaccurate to some extent. Billy's speed is way ahead of the curve...it's probably more special than a 19 y/o who can throw 100.

When you project Billy Hamilton having success in the majors with his skill set, it's a bizarre world we would be living in. Players and coaches have tried to relate the tales. You can't explain what it means to watch someone score from 2nd on an infield fly. I read that recently. Even outfielders lose their nerve when Billy's in the game. The timing for everything is off the charts.

So, even though Stephenson is so awesome and at his peak would be probably be worth more than Hamilton's peak, I think if Hamilton does dominate in his certain way then the overall effect will be massive, especially for a 3-4 year stretch in his mid-20's. I thought for sure I'd vote Stephenson, but I'll go with Hamilton because of the unexpected entertainment factor.

While Hamilton's speed is "better" than Stephenson's velocity, I will take a pitchers velocity as a "carry tool" over a players speed every day of the week and so would every scout in the history of the world.

texasdave
12-11-2012, 04:24 PM
I picked Steve Rogers in part because I think he'll be better than Chad Rogers.

If he throws his fastball anywhere near as well as he throws his shield, that much is a dead certainty. But, getting back to reality, Steve Rogers was a five-time all-star, won 158 games in the bigs and had a career ERA of 3.17 in over 2800 IP. Chad does have his work cut out for him.

mace
12-11-2012, 04:29 PM
While Hamilton's speed is "better" than Stephenson's velocity, I will take a pitchers velocity as a "carry tool" over a players speed every day of the week and so would every scout in the history of the world.

I'm not so sure that Branch Rickey would agree with you.

texasdave
12-11-2012, 04:33 PM
x

dougdirt
12-11-2012, 04:33 PM
I'm not so sure that Branch Rickey would agree with you.

I bet he would. If Billy Hamilton were just an above-average runner, his value would plummet. If Robert Stephenson merely had above-average velocity, he would still have a ton of potential because he would have a plus pitch and two above-average ones. If your carry tool is really the only tool you have, speed is not a good one to bet on.

mace
12-11-2012, 04:39 PM
I bet he would. If Billy Hamilton were just an above-average runner, his value would plummet. If Robert Stephenson merely had above-average velocity, he would still have a ton of potential because he would have a plus pitch and two above-average ones. If your carry tool is really the only tool you have, speed is not a good one to bet on.

Maybe so. I don't recall reading much of Rickey's philosophy on pitching, other than his development of the "strings" section at Vero Beach, which he devised for pitchers to work on their control. But he positively placed a premium on foot speed, and actively searched it out. The quote, "Speed never goes into a slump," is attributed to the Mahatma.

dougdirt
12-11-2012, 04:47 PM
Maybe so. I don't recall reading much of Rickey's philosophy on pitching, other than his development of the "strings" section at Vero Beach, which he devised for pitchers to work on their control. But he positively placed a premium on foot speed, and actively searched it out. The quote, "Speed never goes into a slump," is attributed to the Mahatma.

And every time someone says that speed never goes into a slump I laugh. Any leg soreness or injury or tweak and "speed slumps". Speed is a complimentary tool, not a carrying tool. It is like the throwing arm strength of a position player. Yeah, at some point you do need enough of it to work. But it isn't going to make or break you in 99% of the cases. Your inability to hit or field (be it catch or range to the ball will). Speed is the same way. If you can't hit, it doesn't matter how much speed you have. If you can't read the ball off the bat, it doesn't matter how much speed you have. Speed is a compliment tool. It helps you in other areas, but you need other skills to begin to use it.

camisadelgolf
12-11-2012, 04:51 PM
x
I saw your post before you deleted it. Believe me--doing these prospect rankings is a big pain in the behind. Mistakes are inevitable. Hopefully everyone knows it's okay to chip in because it's a lot of work for just one person.

Scrap Irony
12-11-2012, 05:52 PM
I went Hamilton, as his combination of ceiling, production, position, and excitement are among the highest in the game. He has a chance-- a good chance-- to become one of those rare players you have to see play a game. And this about this-- Hamilton vould very well post a speed-adjusted OPS in the 1.000 range-- for a decade. Which is patently ridiculous. And fun. And unnerving even to professional ballplayers.

He'll never hit all that many home runs (though I think he'll add power as he matures). He'll like never OPS 850 (though his peak years make that an outlier possibility). But he has real MVP capabilities.

And he to Votto, Bruce, Chapman, Cueto, Latos, and perhaps Bailey as Red game-changers. (Hopefully.)

OGB
12-13-2012, 05:04 AM
I just felt like I should give some love to someone besides Billy