Re: Reds move up on BA's organization report cards
I don't know that the lower minors looks all that great. It's certainly not deep. Essentially, in two years of DanO the Reds have three arms (Bailey, Wood and Cueto) and a bat (Bruce) to dream on.
When isn't that the case?
Go back in time four years ago and folks thought the organization was swimming in pitching (Gruler, Basham, Moseley and Howington being the top-rated guys) with Pena and Encarancion around to boot.
IMO, what happened in 2006 was that, unlike many past seasons, a number of the team's top prospects had good seasons. Instead of doing a hot prospect reshuffle, 2006 reinforced the prospect status of many of the Reds' top kids. There wasn't a lot in the way of depth, though. If the top prospects ultimately miss, there isn't much beyond that that profiles as any sort of help. Even if the bulk of the top prospects ultimately make it, the Reds still have to do some serious fishing outside the organization in order to round out a good future team.
A number of Krivsky's draft picks performed well in Billings so we'll see if anything approaching depth comes of it in 2007.
Anyway, while I agree the Reds' system looks better than it did a year ago, I think it's mostly because the farm system managed not to implode for the first time in a number of years, at least in terms of the top prospects. That might be because the Reds now have better top prospects, but that doesn't equate to a turnaround. It's just a good first step with many more needed before anyone proclaims it to be a new direction. At least that's my take.
Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong
I'm witchcrafting everybody.