PDA

View Full Version : Who is Redszone's #13 prospect? 2013



texasdave
01-14-2013, 01:16 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
10) Tanner Rahier
11) Dan Langfield
12) Neftali Soto

Steve4192
01-14-2013, 01:34 PM
I went with Barnhart, simply because he looks like a lock to be a useful major leaguer. I understand he is considered a low ceiling guy, but then again, so was Ryan Hanigan and he turned out to be a pretty damn good player.

Superdude
01-14-2013, 02:03 PM
I can't make up my mind here. Rogers is the kind of guy I used get excited about, but with the pitching as plentiful as it is in this organization, it's hard to muster much enthusiasm about a back of the rotation innings eater. I also can't seem to quell my irrational hope for Seth Mejias-Brean being the steal of the draft last year. He just looks like a monster athlete to me. Maybe he never develops, but he seems like a guy that could make a few small adjustments and be big time prospect in short order. I'd go Brean here, Rogers next.

OnBaseMachine
01-14-2013, 02:10 PM
I have a really good feeling about Seth Mejias-Brean for some reason. He'll be getting my vote until he goes off the board.

dougdirt
01-14-2013, 02:18 PM
Chad Rogers. Incredibly safe bet. Has some stuff. Has a chance to start. Has a chance to relieve.

mace
01-14-2013, 02:25 PM
Feel like a putz . . . still voting for Lutz.

But the others guys mentioned so far--Rogers, Mejias-Brean and Barnhart--are all grouped next on my board. Along with Waldrop.

Steve4192
01-14-2013, 02:54 PM
Chad Rogers. Incredibly safe bet. Has some stuff. Has a chance to start. Has a chance to relieve.

Basically the same logic I used in picking Barnhart. At this point it's all about finding guys who are likely to contribute in some meaningful fashion to the major league ballclub. Rogers certainly fits that bill.

dougdirt
01-14-2013, 03:05 PM
Basically the same logic I used in picking Barnhart. At this point it's all about finding guys who are likely to contribute in some meaningful fashion to the major league ballclub. Rogers certainly fits that bill.

I can see that. I took Rogers here (actually a little higher) and have Barnhart a tad lower because I think Barnhart has the floor of a no-hit defensive backup catcher. Some value is there, but I think Rogers, sans injury, has the floor of a very good 6th innings reliever/solid 7th inning reliever. Ceiling wise, I think they are pretty similar.

powersackers
01-14-2013, 03:12 PM
I can see that. I took Rogers here (actually a little higher) and have Barnhart a tad lower because I think Barnhart has the floor of a no-hit defensive backup catcher. Some value is there, but I think Rogers, sans injury, has the floor of a very good 6th innings reliever/solid 7th inning reliever. Ceiling wise, I think they are pretty similar.

Lutz's ceiling is much higher and closer to the big league level than any other bat still out there. He hit some big leaguers in the WBC qualifyer to the tune of a .300 average. Also looked great in Winter ball. All of which is a better case than Soto had... and to me better than anyone else on the board.

757690
01-14-2013, 03:15 PM
Doug convinced me on Chad Rogers, but since I've voted for Lutz in the last few ballots, I'll stick with him here until he wins a vote. Then it's Rogers and Barnhart for me. At this point, anyone whose likely going to play in the majors is better than anyone else, no matter how high their ceiling.

Steve4192
01-14-2013, 03:18 PM
Lutz's ceiling is much higher and closer to the big league level than any other bat still out there. He hit some big leaguers in the WBC qualifyer to the tune of a .300 average. Also looked great in Winter ball. All of which is a better case than Soto had... and to me better than anyone else on the board.

Soto posted a 909 OPS in the high minors as a 22 year old. Lutz got his first taste of the high minors as a 23 year old and shat the bed (704 OPS). I don't think either guy profiles as a legit starting 1B in the majors, but if I had to choose one, it would be Soto.

JayBruceFan
01-14-2013, 03:34 PM
Lutz all the way

757690
01-14-2013, 03:44 PM
Soto posted a 909 OPS in the high minors as a 22 year old. Lutz got his first taste of the high minors as a 23 year old and shat the bed (704 OPS). I don't think either guy profiles as a legit starting 1B in the majors, but if I had to choose one, it would be Soto.

The biggest reason why I like Lutz over Soto is that Lutz just started playing baseball a few years ago and likely has more room to grow and develop. Soto hit a wall at AAA. Lutz may as well, but it's too early to tell.

dougdirt
01-14-2013, 03:54 PM
Lutz's ceiling is much higher and closer to the big league level than any other bat still out there. He hit some big leaguers in the WBC qualifyer to the tune of a .300 average. Also looked great in Winter ball. All of which is a better case than Soto had... and to me better than anyone else on the board.

Lutz does have a high ceiling, but he also has a really low floor of someone who can't make the Majors.

What did he do between the WBC/AFL, get 2-3 weeks of games against guys who already played a really long season? That is nothing to even look at really.

He and Soto are close to me. Neither is within my next few prospects. Questionable bats in the upper minor leagues at first base? Even with some upside, that is suspect as much as it is prospect.

As for him being closer than any other bat out there.... Josh Fellhauer strongly disagrees with you.

dougdirt
01-14-2013, 03:55 PM
The biggest reason why I like Lutz over Soto is that Lutz just started playing baseball a few years ago and likely has more room to grow and develop. Soto hit a wall at AAA. Lutz may as well, but it's too early to tell.

Lutz began playing baseball 8 years ago. Yes, that is quite a short time when all things are considered, but it wasn't a few years ago.

camisadelgolf
01-14-2013, 04:08 PM
Lutz began playing baseball 8 years ago. Yes, that is quite a short time when all things are considered, but it wasn't a few years ago.
I often use the word 'few' in place of the word 'eight'. It's totally okay to do that.

Superdude
01-14-2013, 04:26 PM
Lutz began playing baseball 8 years ago. Yes, that is quite a short time when all things are considered, but it wasn't a few years ago.

I'm starting to think that's overplayed too. Five years of professional instruction should probably be enough to make up for whatever he lost as a 14 year old. I think we'll have a better idea of where to rank him next year. A homer every 14 or 15 at bats is no small feat, but it's hard to take anything seriously in that Bakersfield park.

mace
01-14-2013, 04:46 PM
I'm starting to think that's overplayed too. Five years of professional instruction should probably be enough to make up for whatever he lost as a 14 year old.

Disagree. Kids in this country, or say the Dominican Republic, grow up playing and/or watching the game. By age eight or nine, easily, many are mimicking the swings and throwing motions of professional players. The game is ingrained. We know the moves and plays and even a lot of the subtleties. If the process begins at 15 or 16, that kid is way, way, way behind. Comparatively, Lutz missed out on a decade of learning--of having the game in his head.

Now, it could be that his athletic ability has been able to catch him up this far, but that will be his ceiling. Until he hits that ceiling, though, I'm liking his upside.

dougdirt
01-14-2013, 05:04 PM
Disagree. Kids in this country, or say the Dominican Republic, grow up playing and/or watching the game. By age eight or nine, easily, many are mimicking the swings and throwing motions of professional players. The game is ingrained. We know the moves and plays and even a lot of the subtleties. If the process begins at 15 or 16, that kid is way, way, way behind. Comparatively, Lutz missed out on a decade of learning--of having the game in his head.

Now, it could be that his athletic ability has been able to catch him up this far, but that will be his ceiling. Until he hits that ceiling, though, I'm liking his upside.

I guess the question is this: He was working with professional level coaches almost from the beginning. He didn't have long formed habits to break out of. He was taught the correct way, or at least a correct way, to do things, almost from the beginning of his baseball life. So what is it that he didn't learn from ages 6-14 that is holding him back at this point? That is where this whole conversation gets lost on me. What is it that he didn't have then that is holding him back now that he might somehow get in the future? Yeah, I am sure his learning curve was much steeper at 16-19 than other guys that age. But now?

mace
01-14-2013, 05:25 PM
I guess the question is this: He was working with professional level coaches almost from the beginning. He didn't have long formed habits to break out of. He was taught the correct way, or at least a correct way, to do things, almost from the beginning of his baseball life. So what is it that he didn't learn from ages 6-14 that is holding him back at this point? That is where this whole conversation gets lost on me. What is it that he didn't have then that is holding him back now that he might somehow get in the future? Yeah, I am sure his learning curve was much steeper at 16-19 than other guys that age. But now?

What didn't he have? Oh, maybe 3,000 practices, for starters. That may sound a bit overstated, and maybe it is, but think of a typical 16-year-old Dominican who gets signed at the age in which Lutz was trying to figure out which hand he throws with. That Dominican kid has conceivably been playing ball every day of his life since he was six. Let's round that low to 300 days a year for 10 years--3,000 days on the ballfield. Granted, American kids typically don't play that much. But if not, a lot of them certainly watch the game a whole lot. They're constantly picking things up.

Think of it this way. If you had a kid with aspirations to play in the big leagues, would you advise him not to pick up a ball or bat or watch a game until he was 16?

Now, imagine you're a coach. A 16-year-old comes to you for instruction, and he's never put on a baseball glove. He's never held a bat. Are you going to start by teaching him how to inside-out a fastball to the opposite field? By showing him how to guard the line in the late innings of a one-run game? Where to line up as a cutoff man? How to pick up that red dot on the slider?

Superdude
01-14-2013, 06:17 PM
What didn't he have? Oh, maybe 3,000 practices, for starters. That may sound a bit overstated, and maybe it is, but think of a typical 16-year-old Dominican who gets signed at the age in which Lutz was trying to figure out which hand he throws with. That Dominican kid has conceivably been playing ball every day of his life since he was six. Let's round that low to 300 days a year for 10 years--3,000 days on the ballfield. Granted, American kids typically don't play that much. But if not, a lot of them certainly watch the game a whole lot. They're constantly picking things up.

Think of it this way. If you had a kid with aspirations to play in the big leagues, would you advise him not to pick up a ball or bat or watch a game until he was 16?

Now, imagine you're a coach. A 16-year-old comes to you for instruction, and he's never put on a baseball glove. He's never held a bat. Are you going to start by teaching him how to inside-out a fastball to the opposite field? By showing him how to guard the line in the late innings of a one-run game? Where to line up as a cutoff man? How to pick up that red dot on the slider?

I guess I'd buy it more if he was showing rapid fire improvements to get where he's at. His overall skillset has remained pretty similar for the last three years or so, albeit while moving up the ladder.

dougdirt
01-14-2013, 06:19 PM
That didn't really answer the question though. What is it that Lutz isn't good at right now, things that are holding him back, that are a direct result of him beginning to play baseball at age 15?

JayBruceFan
01-14-2013, 06:36 PM
Refer to Lutz's cycle with the Dragons for an exhibition of his athletic ability

marcshoe
01-14-2013, 06:45 PM
I went with Rogers simply because I'm not sure I really believe in the other contenders at this point. I don't find a lot to dislike about Rogers. Not a star-in-waiting, but solid. I may vote for Lutz soon (if he's still on the board) because of his potential, but I'm afraid the idea of him is greater than the reality. I'd love to be proven wrong.

edit--just looked at the vote totals, and it looks like Lutz will get this spot, unless another single candidate gains momentum. That's okay; the potential is there.

mace
01-14-2013, 06:47 PM
That didn't really answer the question though. What is it that Lutz isn't good at right now, things that are holding him back, that are a direct result of him beginning to play baseball at age 15?

I don't know . . . maybe hitting and fielding? I suspect that an additional 10 years of muscle memory--putting the bat on the ball, chasing down flies, all the things that constitute playing the game--would serve him well in those areas. Every study I've ever read suggests that there's no substitute for repetition. I don't think Pete Rose would be eager to give back those tens of thousands of swings he took in front of the mirror when he was a kid. I doubt that Mike Piazza believes he wasted his childhood in his backyard batting cage. I'm guessing that Larry Bird took a few helpful jump shots between the ages of eight and fifteen.

dougdirt
01-14-2013, 06:54 PM
I don't know . . . maybe hitting and fielding? I suspect that an additional 10 years of muscle memory--putting the bat on the ball, chasing down flies, all the things that constitute playing the game--would serve him well in those areas. Every study I've ever read suggests that there's no substitute for repetition. I don't think Pete Rose would be eager to give back those tens of thousands of swings he took in front of the mirror when he was a kid. I doubt that Mike Piazza believes he wasted his childhood in his backyard batting cage. I'm guessing that Larry Bird took a few helpful jump shots between the ages of eight and fifteen.

Does Lutz have an inconsistent swing? If not, this point holds zero amount of water.

dougdirt
01-14-2013, 06:57 PM
Also, just to point it out, Lutz wasn't in John Sickels Reds Top 20. www.minorleagueball.com/2013/1/13/3871536/cincinnati-reds-top-20-prospects-for-2013

Red Swagger
01-14-2013, 08:08 PM
What is the Chad Rogers love all about? He is nowhere on ANY Top 20 prospect lists, let alone in the Top 15 in the organization. With a good year in 2013, then we can start talking about it

dougdirt
01-14-2013, 08:50 PM
What is the Chad Rogers love all about? He is nowhere on ANY Top 20 prospect lists, let alone in the Top 15 in the organization. With a good year in 2013, then we can start talking about it

He was on My Top 20 prospect list. He was in my Top 15.

He has outstanding control of his fastball. As a starter, it is slightly-above average. As a reliever, it is above-average. He has an outstanding slider. He is a groundball machine. He has shown he has the stamina to start, though he will need to work with a third pitch better to remain as a starter, but at least it is a change up rather than a breaking ball.

He has shown success, even in a small sample size, in AA. He showed good success in the California League as a pitcher.

Ultimately, for me, it comes down to that he is an incredibly safe bet to be a solid Major League contributor and has some actual upside to be more than just solid. At this point on the list, his sureness is pretty nice.

Watch him pitch. He pounds the strikezone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-0tzXnShlc

marcshoe
01-14-2013, 11:41 PM
Rogers was on the list of Spring Training invites released today, fwiw.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130114&content_id=40962584&vkey=news_cin&c_id=cin&partnerId=rss_cin

Red Swagger
01-15-2013, 12:19 AM
So obviously the Reds are high enough on Rogers to where he is invited to ST. Sam LeCure type with a better fastball and slider? Drafted in the 28th round, right?

Rogers
Freeman
W De La Rosa
Barnhart
Hayes
LaMarre
Lutz
Ravin
Partch
Lotzkar
B Greene

All could make it to AAA Louisville at some point this year?

Nevin Ashley, I had to do some research on this guy, seems like talent is there, drafted in 6th RD by TB, could pair with Corky to C in AAA, till Barnhart comes up. Injuries last year, didn't play much, but still hit .271

757690
01-15-2013, 01:05 AM
That didn't really answer the question though. What is it that Lutz isn't good at right now, things that are holding him back, that are a direct result of him beginning to play baseball at age 15?

Pitch recognition. That's the biggest separater between hitting prospects. They all have their swing down (or should), it's now a matter of knowing what to swing at and what not to swing at. By far the hardest part of hitting pitching. I would imagine that Lutz is miles behind most players at his level on this, as experience is the only method for improvement.

Edd Roush
01-15-2013, 08:40 AM
I went with Reynoso for pure upside. I can see the arguments for Rogers. Not sure that I understand the Lutz love after an underwhelming 2012.

klw
01-15-2013, 10:20 AM
Where is Lotzkar these days in terms of health? My memory of him from last season is not strong.

OGB
01-15-2013, 10:49 AM
Pitch recognition. That's the biggest separater between hitting prospects. They all have their swing down (or should), it's now a matter of knowing what to swing at and what not to swing at. By far the hardest part of hitting pitching. I would imagine that Lutz is miles behind most players at his level on this, as experience is the only method for improvement.

I've been following this debate and am on the side of those that think Lutz's late start is overblown at this point. As far as pitch recognition is concerned, how many non fastballs does a kid see from age 5 to 14?

OGB
01-15-2013, 10:57 AM
I also like Sharky at this juncture. I think we'll see really strong seasons out of both him and Barnhardt. I like his approach on the mound. With the Reds perceived SP depth for several years, I could see Chad utilized as a bullpen arm in a few seasons not out of necessity, but lack of oppurtunity as a starter. I could then see him bouncing between SP and RP until he finds his niche, ala Sam Lecure.

That just made me think, does anyone know what Matt Maloney is doing, and if anyone has tried to make him a bullpen lefty?

Superdude
01-15-2013, 11:30 AM
I've been following this debate and am on the side of those that think Lutz's late start is overblown at this point. As far as pitch recognition is concerned, how many non fastballs does a kid see from age 5 to 14?

My thoughts exactly. It's a whole different ballgame when guys are throwing 90+ with a slew of breaking balls, and Lutz has been immersed in that challenge as long as any other prospect at this point. And I still think we would be seeing marked improvements in this area if it was an experience issue.

Kc61
01-15-2013, 11:42 AM
Whether his late start is relevant or not, I kind of like Lutz as a prospect. He's a big guy with plenty of power. He has OPS'd over .800 several times in his career. His OBP dropped some last season, but he did have a .561 SLG at Bakersfield.

Then, after a rough patch upon his movement up to AA, Lutz went to the AFL and was sensational. 1.004 OPS in a short stint.

My concern about him is that his OBP dropped at the higher levels so far. It was .325 at Bakersfield and .315 at AA. So he's not a top ten guy, but he does have a fine minor league record.

I can see Chad Rogers as a competitor for number 13 too. His K rate has dropped througout his career, though, and I'm concerned it might be in the 5 range at the major league level. It could be hard for him to succeed as a 5 K per nine inning pitcher in the majors.

I voted for Lutz because he's had several minor league seasons of high OPS production and, yes, I was impressed by his hot AFL stint. But it's really tough to distinguish between some of these guys. Rogers, Reynoso, Mejias-Brean, all make sense here as well.

Kc61
01-15-2013, 11:52 AM
So obviously the Reds are high enough on Rogers to where he is invited to ST. Sam LeCure type with a better fastball and slider? Drafted in the 28th round, right?

Rogers
Freeman
W De La Rosa
Barnhart
Hayes
LaMarre
Lutz
Ravin
Partch
Lotzkar
B Greene

All could make it to AAA Louisville at some point this year?

Nevin Ashley, I had to do some research on this guy, seems like talent is there, drafted in 6th RD by TB, could pair with Corky to C in AAA, till Barnhart comes up. Injuries last year, didn't play much, but still hit .271

Lecure K'd more guys in the minor leagues. 7.9 Ks per nine innings overall and slightly higher at AAA. And while Lecure was "only" 6'1", he was still more projectable than Rogers.

Sam Lecure also had some dominant stretches in the high minor leagues. I don't know where the idea comes from that Chad Rogers has a "better fastball and slider" than Lecure.

Lecure is not chopped liver, he was a successful minor league pitcher, and shows very good stuff in the Reds bullpen. I'd be thrilled if Rogers turns out as well as Sam did.

dougdirt
01-15-2013, 01:24 PM
Lecure K'd more guys in the minor leagues. 7.9 Ks per nine innings overall and slightly higher at AAA. And while Lecure was "only" 6'1", he was still more projectable than Rogers.

Sam Lecure also had some dominant stretches in the high minor leagues. I don't know where the idea comes from that Chad Rogers has a "better fastball and slider" than Lecure.

Lecure is not chopped liver, he was a successful minor league pitcher, and shows very good stuff in the Reds bullpen. I'd be thrilled if Rogers turns out as well as Sam did.

The idea comes from the fact that Chad Rogers has a better fastball than LeCure, for sure, and also has a darn good slider (so does LeCure, so I don't know who exactly has the better one, but both are quite good). LeCure is a tad taller, but he wasn't any more projectable. Rogers has better pure stuff than LeCure has. I could see Rogers having a better career.

dougdirt
01-15-2013, 01:28 PM
Pitch recognition. That's the biggest separater between hitting prospects. They all have their swing down (or should), it's now a matter of knowing what to swing at and what not to swing at. By far the hardest part of hitting pitching. I would imagine that Lutz is miles behind most players at his level on this, as experience is the only method for improvement.

You aren't seeing too many offspeed pitches in the time he missed. You absolutely aren't seeing any kind of quality offspeed pitches at those ages. I don't know, I just don't see a lack of experience through the age of 14 holding back his pitch recognition skills. And as studies have shown time and time again, if you don't have it by an early age, you probably aren't ever going to have it. Why that is, I don't have a complete idea (maybe it is due to it being more about eyesight than skillset?).

Superdude
01-15-2013, 02:05 PM
The idea comes from the fact that Chad Rogers has a better fastball than LeCure, for sure, and also has a darn good slider (so does LeCure, so I don't know who exactly has the better one, but both are quite good). LeCure is a tad taller, but he wasn't any more projectable. Rogers has better pure stuff than LeCure has. I could see Rogers having a better career.

Lecure gets more out of his stuff than anyone I've ever seen though. Rogers could theoretically be better given his fastball cranks a few ticks higher, but I wouldn't say that's an easy ticket to surpassing what Lecure's done. If he ends up in the pen, saying he's demonstrably better than Lecure is practically saying he'll be a closer type arm.

dougdirt
01-15-2013, 03:55 PM
Lecure gets more out of his stuff than anyone I've ever seen though. Rogers could theoretically be better given his fastball cranks a few ticks higher, but I wouldn't say that's an easy ticket to surpassing what Lecure's done. If he ends up in the pen, saying he's demonstrably better than Lecure is practically saying he'll be a closer type arm.

Out of the bullpen, Rogers was 92-95, touching a notch higher with an above-average slider. Plenty of guys have closed with similar stuff. It isn't the exact profile of a closer, but it is a profile of a guy who could close.

LeCure does get the most out of his stuff though. But the guy doesn't average 90 MPH with his fastball. Rogers is 90-93 as a starter and he controls it quite well.

Superdude
01-15-2013, 04:27 PM
Out of the bullpen, Rogers was 92-95, touching a notch higher with an above-average slider. Plenty of guys have closed with similar stuff. It isn't the exact profile of a closer, but it is a profile of a guy who could close.

LeCure does get the most out of his stuff though. But the guy doesn't average 90 MPH with his fastball. Rogers is 90-93 as a starter and he controls it quite well.

I didn't realize he threw quite that hard. What do you make of his K rate? It's not bad considering the rest of his game, but do you see him maintaining that or slipping down to Leake levels as he moves forward? He's definitely an intriguing arm the more I dig into his numbers.

dougdirt
01-15-2013, 05:34 PM
I doubt his strikeout rate goes Leake/Arroyo, even if he remains a starter. If you put him in the bullpen, I see an 8+ K/9.

Superdude
01-15-2013, 08:39 PM
I doubt his strikeout rate goes Leake/Arroyo, even if he remains a starter. If you put him in the bullpen, I see an 8+ K/9.

So we've got a guy that's extremely stingy with walks, shows solid groundball tendencies, and a K rate potentially in the 6-7 range. Now I'm starting to think we might be underrating Rogers. That's a heck of pitcher if his skills translate up the ladder, which I guess is the big question at this point.