PDA

View Full Version : Who is Redszone's #10 prospect? 2013



texasdave
01-04-2013, 12:16 PM
1) Billy Hamilton
2) Robert Stephenson
3) Tony Cingrani
4) Daniel Corcino
5) Jesse Winker
6) Nick Travieso
7) Henry Rodriguez
8) Ismael Guillon
9) Yorman Rodriguez

texasdave
01-04-2013, 12:23 PM
I went with Ryan LaMarre, a rich man's Drew Stubbs.

Superdude
01-04-2013, 12:33 PM
I prefer ceiling at this stage in the game, so I'll go Rahier. Tons of offensive potential and great tools at third.

dougdirt
01-04-2013, 12:43 PM
I prefer ceiling at this stage in the game, so I'll go Rahier. Tons of offensive potential and great tools at third.

I am on the Rahier train here as well. I like the tools, and at the plate his peripherals were good and the scouting reports on his bat came back as strong. Defensively, there is a lot of work to do.

Steve4192
01-04-2013, 01:14 PM
I went with Ryan LaMarre, a rich man's Drew Stubbs.

What makes you say Lamarre is a rich man's Stubbs?

If anything, he looks like Stubbs minus the power potential. I'd say he is poor man's Stubbs, which is why most folks are looking at him as a potential 4th or 5th OF rather than a potential starter.

Scrap Irony
01-04-2013, 01:57 PM
Langfield again for me, though I understand the Rahier love.

I think Langfield's got the higher floor and their ceilings are close enough for government work.

Surprised Chad "Shark Bite" Rogers hasn't gotten more love. Great production, good peripherals, and a solid scouting report indicating a possible BOR innings eater. At AA and likely to help at least as a middle reliever. With nothing but success as a professional. After having pitched in a tough, tough league for pitchers and performing very, very well.

All signs indicate a solid C+ prospect at least.

mace
01-04-2013, 02:42 PM
Surprised Chad "Shark Bite" Rogers hasn't gotten more love. Great production, good peripherals, and a solid scouting report indicating a possible BOR innings eater. At AA and likely to help at least as a middle reliever. With nothing but success as a professional. After having pitched in a tough, tough league for pitchers and performing very, very well.

All signs indicate a solid C+ prospect at least.

Agreed. Still going Lutz, though. I'm simply intrigued by his physical prowess and the fact that he's been able to produce as he has after starting the game so dang late. It just seems like there might be a monster lurking inside him.

dougdirt
01-04-2013, 02:44 PM
Langfield again for me, though I understand the Rahier love.

I think Langfield's got the higher floor and their ceilings are close enough for government work.

Surprised Chad "Shark Bite" Rogers hasn't gotten more love. Great production, good peripherals, and a solid scouting report indicating a possible BOR innings eater. At AA and likely to help at least as a middle reliever. With nothing but success as a professional. After having pitched in a tough, tough league for pitchers and performing very, very well.

All signs indicate a solid C+ prospect at least.

All of these guys could go in any order for me and I would be just fine with it. All very close in prospect value IMO.

Kc61
01-04-2013, 05:17 PM
Rahier had a .577 OPS. How can anybody vote for him?

Only kidding. Relax.

I went for Lutz because he did so well in the Arizona Fall League and has been very steady in his climb through the Reds minor league system. He looks like perhaps he will be able to hit major league pitching successfully. Looking forward to his work in the high minors to see how well he handles it.

dougdirt
01-04-2013, 05:22 PM
Rahier had a .577 OPS. How can anybody vote for him?

Only kidding. Relax.

I went for Lutz because he did so well in the Arizona Fall League and has been very steady in his climb through the Reds minor league system. He looks like perhaps he will be able to hit major league pitching successfully. Looking forward to his work in the high minors to see how well he handles it.

It was 43 at bats. 11 games. The AFL sample should really not be factored in at all.

camisadelgolf
01-04-2013, 07:27 PM
It was 43 at bats. 11 games. The AFL sample should really not be factored in at all.
Yes, it should.

mth123
01-04-2013, 07:30 PM
Soto. A rebound puts him back where he was in previous years.

dougdirt
01-04-2013, 07:39 PM
Yes, it should.

Why? He didn't really exhibit any unseen before skill while there. Poor plate discipline. Power. Really high BABIP. This wasn't a pitcher going out there who all of a sudden showed 5 MPH that he never did before or a guy like Billy Hamilton going out there and all of a sudden hitting for power. He did what he has done in the past, but with a crazy BABIP that boosted his average.

camisadelgolf
01-04-2013, 07:58 PM
Why? He didn't really exhibit any unseen before skill while there. Poor plate discipline. Power. Really high BABIP. This wasn't a pitcher going out there who all of a sudden showed 5 MPH that he never did before or a guy like Billy Hamilton going out there and all of a sudden hitting for power. He did what he has done in the past, but with a crazy BABIP that boosted his average.
It sounds like you're saying his performance would hurt his prospect ranking. I'm okay with that. But it's silly to completely disregard a performance no matter what the context is.

Superdude
01-04-2013, 08:11 PM
It sounds like you're saying his performance would hurt his prospect ranking. I'm okay with that. But it's silly to completely disregard a performance no matter what the context is.

It's less than 50 at bats. Any information is worth factoring in, but it's a pretty negligible sample size in the grand scheme of things.

dougdirt
01-04-2013, 08:17 PM
It sounds like you're saying his performance would hurt his prospect ranking. I'm okay with that. But it's silly to completely disregard a performance no matter what the context is.

I am just saying that it is one third of a month worth of data. It is essentially meaningless to look at the numbers. If there is something that suggests a change of skillset, that is worth looking into. But on pure numbers, it isn't even worth looking at.

Steve4192
01-04-2013, 09:33 PM
It sounds like you're saying his performance would hurt his prospect ranking. I'm okay with that. But it's silly to completely disregard a performance no matter what the context is.

Putting weight in numbers from the AFL is like putting weight in what a guy hit between June 1st and June 15th. It is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. A two-week hot streak isn't indicative of anything.

Kc61
01-04-2013, 11:24 PM
After putting up some good minor league numbers, Lutz fell off a bit when he got to AA later in the 2012 season. So it was encouraging to see him have a hot streak at the AFL. It was a positive step after a rough patch.

I wouldn't exaggerate its importance. But if I were a Reds exec, I'd be pleased that Lutz did well there and I would be encouraged by that fact.

camisadelgolf
01-05-2013, 03:46 AM
I understand. I just wanted to give Doug his daily dose of a semantic debate.

camisadelgolf
01-05-2013, 03:47 AM
Putting weight in numbers from the AFL is like putting weight in what a guy hit between June 1st and June 15th. It is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. A two-week hot streak isn't indicative of anything.
What about June 1st and June 30th? June 1st and August 1st? Where do you draw the line?

klw
01-08-2013, 09:35 AM
We probably should add Jonathan Reynoso to the discussion for #11 and beyond due to his inclusion on the BA list.