Originally Posted by M2
That's highly revisionist. The Reds were rated #3 heading into 2001 and will be rated #3 heading into 2008. While they may not be exactly the same, the 2008 group projects no stronger than the 2001 did on paper.
Insisting that this crop of youngsters is naturally better is just a neat way of not learning from recent history. What the Reds need to do is identify the absolute keepers and the kids who should be traded while they've got top markets. Imagine what might have happened if the JimBo regime had moved Gookie Dawkins instead of Mike Cameron. Imagine what Austin Kearns and Ty Howington might have fetched. That could have gone a long from transforming the Reds from also rans to a winning ballclub.
The Reds would be well advised to try to know now what will be known by all later. Being ranked #3 doesn't mean the future is assured, it means the club has a hand of cards to play.
Of course you are dead on that the Reds need to identify the keepers and trade away the hype. I don't think Doug was advising anything other than that. Unless I'm wrong I think he was talking about the top end talent and even at that time none of those players had the raw talent and production that the top five has now.
Look at the BA top 5 from 2001 and then look at it to the group we have now and it's really not even close. Henson was Yankee/Wolverine hype with raw talent and not much production. Sardinha and Espinoza were completely hype.
Only one player in the current top five is lacking production and is rated more on ceiling. Three of the top five in 01 were almost complete hype.
I'd suggest that if Maloney was #5 like he should be this wouldn't even be a question. Not even mentioning that the 01 class wasn't diverse at the top like this year. I think you both have good points, just maybe Doug didn't come clear that he was talking about top end ready to produce talent. He said that and by any measure he's right , IMO.