Baseball America ranks Reds farm system 29th out of 30 teams

[savafan]

Here is how they ranked each organization:

1. Dodgers
2. Marlins
3. Angels
4. D-Backs
5. Brewers
6. Twins
7. Red Sox
8. Braves
9. Rockies
10. D-Rays
11. Indians
12. White Sox
13. Orioles
14. Tigers
15. Cubs
16. Rangers
17. Yankees
18. Giants
19. Pirates
20. Astros
21. Cardinals
22. Phillies
23. Royals
24. Nationals
25. Blue Jays
26. Athletics
27. Mariners
28. Padres
29. Reds
30. Mets


And here are the Reds top 10 prospects

1. Homer Bailey RHP
2. Jay Bruce OF
3. Travis Wood LHP
4. B.J. Szymanski OF
5. Chris Denorfia OF
6. Rafeal Gonzalez RHP
7. Miguel Perez C
8. Tyler Pelland LHP
9. Joey Votto 1B
10. Travis Chick RHP

[KronoRed]

BS

We are just as bad as the mets.

[max venable]

BS

We are just as bad as the mets.

Nice.

I think they're probably about right with their assessment...but that's all going to change...right?

[Doc. Scott]

OW. While I'd put the Reds in the lower third, I find it hard to believe we're worse than all of the Nationals, Padres, Royals, Astros, and Cardinals.

[M2]

OW. While I'd put the Reds in the lower third, I find it hard to believe we're worse than all of the Nationals, Padres, Royals, Astros, and Cardinals.

I'd take either the Cardinals or Astros systems in a heartbeat. Both feature a quality high minors starter in the #1 slot and both have had strong drafts over the past two years.

To borrow from WOY, the Nats, Padres, Mets and Royals are all at the Reds' lunch table.

Anyway, for anyone who thought DanO had the system going in the right direction, I submit the BA list. He drafted for tools. BA likes tools. BA just ranked the Reds 29th out of 30.

[dougdirt]

I'd take either the Cardinals or Astros systems in a heartbeat. Both feature a quality high minors starter in the #1 slot and both have had strong drafts over the past two years.

To borrow from WOY, the Nats, Padres, Mets and Royals are all at the Reds' lunch table.

Anyway, for anyone who thought DanO had the system going in the right direction, I submit the BA list. He drafted for tools. BA likes tools. BA just ranked the Reds 29th out of 30.

That part may be true, but the Reds are the ones who run that table.

As for the Cards or Astros having a #1 guy in the high minors...yeah they do. The Cards have Anthony Reyes, but who else do they have? He is it. The Astros have Hirsh and Patton and who else? Patton isnt even in the high minors yet, and after him they dont have a whole lot that I see that puts them ahead of the Reds in any way shape or form

[M2]

That part may be true, but the Reds are the ones who run that table.

As for the Cards or Astros having a #1 guy in the high minors...yeah they do. The Cards have Anthony Reyes, but who else do they have? He is it. The Astros have Hirsh and Patton and who else? Patton isnt even in the high minors yet, and after him they dont have a whole lot that I see that puts them ahead of the Reds in any way shape or form

A) I'd trade the entire Reds top 10 for Hirsch and Patton. Wild guess, but their #9 (Bogusevic) would probably rank ahead of the Reds' #4 (Szymanski).

B) Reyes is not it with the Cardinals and only folks desperate to see the Birds fall from grace would claim such a thing. IMO, BA listed them just about right.

C) Bravado is nice, but rdiersin made a good case for the Mets and the Royals. I don't agree with the Royals still because the system dies after about four guys (none of whom can pitch). The Reds have got exactly no one like Zimmerman. I'm guessing the average Padres fan would prefer the Padres list, just like the average Reds fan will insist the Reds have a better list. My take is they both suck and who cares.

If Bailey,Bruce and Wood all progress, we will be ranked number 5 next year.

Is that before or after pigs start flying because Hell has frozen over and it's making their hooves cold?

[dougdirt]

A) I'd trade the entire Reds top 10 for Hirsch and Patton. Wild guess, but their #9 (Bogusevic) would probably rank ahead of the Reds' #4 (Szymanski).

Thats just a silly statement. You would trade the Reds "top 10 prospects" for two guys who have yet to pitch in the bigs for more than 50 innings combined?
Oh, and BA thinks way to highly of Szymanski. I wouldnt put him any higher than 7th in the system. He cant stay healthy and he cant seem to get on base with any consistancy. He is a good athlete with some pop in his bat, but he isnt getting any younger.

B) Reyes is not it with the Cardinals and only folks desperate to see the Birds fall from grace would claim such a thing. IMO, BA listed them just about right.

Who else do the Cardinals have? The Cards arent going to take a fall from grace, but I dont see anything that says the Cards have a better system than the Reds.

[dougdirt]

Ive got to agree with Doc on this one for sure. The Reds cant be below some of those teams. I take everything BA says with a grain of salt though. They are very high on ones percieved potential rather than ones actual production. Although they may be ranked so low as most of their upper echelon talent seems to be at the lower levels....

[M2]

The Reds probably would have copped 30 before the Mets made the Delgado and LoDuca deals.

Though the Royals are #30 in my book.

[rdiersin]

The Reds probably would have copped 30 before the Mets made the Delgado and LoDuca deals.

Though the Royals are #30 in my book.

I'd take the Royals with Butler and Gordon over the Reds.The Mets might be better than the Reds, at least in terms of impact players, with Milledge and Pelfrey

[Falls City Beer]

I'd take the Royals with Butler and Gordon over the Reds.The Mets might be better than the Reds, at least in terms of impact players, with Milledge and Pelfrey

I'm with ya. Reds are #30 with a bullet. I think we envision the Royals at 30 for the way they handle their farm talent at MLB level, but in terms of pure potential the Royals have more interesting and farther along presences than the Reds--particularly if you count Denorfia a MLB player. Then it just becomes undebateable--Reds are by far the worst.

[rdiersin]

I'm with ya. Reds are #30 with a bullet. I think we envision the Royals at 30 for the way they handle their farm talent at MLB level, but in terms of pure potential the Royals have more interesting and farther along presences than the Reds--particularly if you count Denorfia a MLB player. Then it just becomes undebateable--Reds are by far the worst.

If you count Denorfia as a MLB player, then Zimmerman must be too, and then the worst, hands down, would be the Nats, but yea the Reds are bad. When your best players were all in low A or below, that's not good. There are still some that I hold hope for like Gardner, but if you look at the system as of now, its not looking too great. It will be interesting to see what happens this year. I could see that if progress is made by Bailey, Bruce and Wood acclimate themselves well in full season ball, and they have a good draft that the system could jump to the 15-20 range, maybe more. Such is the way with prospect lists.

[Aronchis]

If you count Denorfia as a MLB player, then Zimmerman must be too, and then the worst, hands down, would be the Nats, but yea the Reds are bad. When your best players were all in low A or below, that's not good. There are still some that I hold hope for like Gardner, but if you look at the system as of now, its not looking too great. It will be interesting to see what happens this year. I could see that if progress is made by Bailey, Bruce and Wood acclimate themselves well in full season ball, and they have a good draft that the system could jump to the 15-20 range, maybe more. Such is the way with prospect lists.

The Reds system was ranked number 3 in 2001. These rankings are biased based and poorly developed. If Bailey,Bruce and Wood all progress, we will be ranked number 5 next year

[membengal]

WOO HOO!

In your FACE, Mets!