Will Drew Stubbs be a bust?

[dougdirt]

Upton is a totally different case. You can't compare the progression of a HS guy to a college guy.

It isn't a different case at all. It is a case of a guy not using all the tools he had immediately in his first full season.

[edabbs44]

It isn't a different case at all. It is a case of a guy not using all the tools he had immediately in his first full season.

Come on. You honestly think that both Upton and Stubbs should be judged the same way coming out of a draft? When Stubbs played 4 years in the Big 12 and Upton came out of HS?

Should Mesoraco be viewed on the same timeline as Matt Weiters?

[gedred69]

Granted, he needs more time to show if he can figure in the future. Seeing him at Dayton, I was not impressed with his bat. After being lowered in the BO, he did better. Yet, I'm still inclined if he gets off to a good start at High A Sarasota, deal him for a catcher, ---or pitching prospect. This year, I'm more tantilized by the prospect of how much better Dorn can get. He is still under the radar for now, thankfully so. He will at least be AA, but I expect more like AAA at the start of this season.

[Betterread]

We have to not confuse the questions. There are two debates being combined in to one here. The first is, will Stubbs eventually live up to his potential? The second is, where does Stubbs stand today in regards to question one?

Doug has attempted to make the case that the Reds understood Stubbs would be on the 5 year+ curve when they drafted him. You are saying the Reds would be fine if did make the majors until age 26. I simply can't believe that. You don't take a first rounder who you don't think will make his major league debut until he's 26. Sure there are a lot of players who follow that path. There's nothing wrong with that. But when they're drafted in the top 10, that's not the intent. That just doesn't make sense.

Let's not confuse the questions. He might pan out, he might not. There are paths and arguments for both eventualities and we can continue to make them. But when it comes to where he stands today as a prospect, he's slipped.

I agree with you, to a limited extent.
He currently isn't performing like the highly ranked amateur he was described as going into the 2007 draft.
But I don't think Stubbs has slipped. His ranking in the organization and in comparison to other minor leaugers has modestly risen. I wish he was further along in his development, and I am not convinced of his hitting ability, yet. However, he is a legitimate CFer and he a top class athlete. These are strong reasons to be patient with him (see Dickerson for another example).

[dougdirt]

Come on. You honestly think that both Upton and Stubbs should be judged the same way coming out of a draft? When Stubbs played 4 years in the Big 12 and Upton came out of HS?

Should Mesoraco be viewed on the same timeline as Matt Weiters?

It has nothing to do with timeline. It has to do with a lackluster performance in the first full season of baseball. I don't think Stubbs has a chance of going Justin Upton in 2008 (going A+/AA/MLB), but I do think he could pull a Justin Upton to an extent in that his first full season didn't match what the scouts thought of his tools and ability, but then in his second full season the tools and ability caught up with what people thought about him.

[Cedric]

We have to not confuse the questions. There are two debates being combined in to one here. The first is, will Stubbs eventually live up to his potential? The second is, where does Stubbs stand today in regards to question one?

I agree, that if Stubbs succeeds, it will be because he turned over a new leaf in the late summer of 2007. That might have happened. 2008 should start to tell us. The point I'm trying to make is that, as of today, he's behind the curve. He's not as good a prospect as his draft peers. The Top 100 rankings in light of player age are great evidence of that.

Doug has attempted to make the case that the Reds understood Stubbs would be on the 5 year+ curve when they drafted him. You are saying the Reds would be fine if did make the majors until age 26. I simply can't believe that. You don't take a first rounder who you don't think will make his major league debut until he's 26. Sure there are a lot of players who follow that path. There's nothing wrong with that. But when they're drafted in the top 10, that's not the intent. That just doesn't make sense.

Let's not confuse the questions. He might pan out, he might not. There are paths and arguments for both eventualities and we can continue to make them. But when it comes to where he stands today as a prospect, he's slipped.

We all knew when he was drafted that there was a high likelihood that he would be behind his peers for a few years. As I stated above. Is that smart business? I dunno. I just know that most fans knew there would be a big learning curve for Drew even though he was a college bat. I'll assume MLB teams knew what we all knew.

[edabbs44]

It has nothing to do with timeline. It has to do with a lackluster performance in the first full season of baseball. I don't think Stubbs has a chance of going Justin Upton in 2008 (going A+/AA/MLB), but I do think he could pull a Justin Upton to an extent in that his first full season didn't match what the scouts thought of his tools and ability, but then in his second full season the tools and ability caught up with what people thought about him.

I think you are missing a few key points:

1) Stubbs got almost 250 PAs in 2006. Yes last year was his first "full" season, but he had a taste of the pro life before. You can't toss out 2006, just because it wasn't a full season. Upton went into 2006 basically straight from HS.

Check out what Longoria did in his pro debut even though it wasn't a full season.

2) Upton was 18 in his first full minor league season. Stubbs was 22. They were both on the same level of competition. I think Upton gets a little more slack for not ripping it up.


Listen, obviously Stubbs could pull an Upton and have a great year. The question is, do you think it will happen? Do you have the faith in him? I know you have been saying that it is too soon to label him a complete bust. That is probably true. But do you think he will pan out or do you think he will bust?

[Cedric]

I think you are missing a few key points:

1) Stubbs got almost 250 PAs in 2006. Yes last year was his first "full" season, but he had a taste of the pro life before. You can't toss out 2006, just because it wasn't a full season. Upton went into 2006 basically straight from HS.

Check out what Longoria did in his pro debut even though it wasn't a full season.

2) Upton was 18 in his first full minor league season. Stubbs was 22. They were both on the same level of competition. I think Upton gets a little more slack for not ripping it up.


Listen, obviously Stubbs could pull an Upton and have a great year. The question is, do you think it will happen? Do you have the faith in him? I know you have been saying that it is too soon to label him a complete bust. That is probably true. But do you think he will pan out or do you think he will bust?

Why would Drew need to put up Upton numbers to not be a bust? Everyone knows that his ceiling with the bat isn't near Justin Upton's. I think if Drew Stubbs could put together another 07 at a higher level we will be laughing at this "bust" talk. I can't believe he was written off already anyway, laughable considering he still was getting on base and playing superior defense. That alone has value at his position. A "bust" has no value.

[dougdirt]

I think you are missing a few key points:

1) Stubbs got almost 250 PAs in 2006. Yes last year was his first "full" season, but he had a taste of the pro life before. You can't toss out 2006, just because it wasn't a full season. Upton went into 2006 basically straight from HS.

There is a long history of people not doing much their first 'half season'. Upton had time in instructional league in the fall of 2005. I think my point holds itself up fine.

Check out what Longoria did in his pro debut even though it wasn't a full season.

Polished hitter versus raw hitter. Not comparable.

2) Upton was 18 in his first full minor league season. Stubbs was 22. They were both on the same level of competition. I think Upton gets a little more slack for not ripping it up.

Except Justin Upton was also being called the next Ken Griffey Jr and was a once in a generational type player then went out and was outperformed by Jay Bruce, Cameron Maybin, Colby Rasmus and Andrew McCutchen in the same league and it really wasn't that close.

Listen, obviously Stubbs could pull an Upton and have a great year. The question is, do you think it will happen? Do you have the faith in him? I know you have been saying that it is too soon to label him a complete bust. That is probably true. But do you think he will pan out or do you think he will bust?

Do I think he will go Upton in terms of having a much better year than the previous one? Absolutely. I don't think he is going to go out and OPS .900, but he won't be playing in the Cal League either....
I think Stubbs will be fine and make him MLB debut mid to late 2009.

[Cedric]

Just b/c you don't agree with the logic doesn't make it poor logic.

Stubbs was drafted to be in the Reds' OF plans for 2009. He won't be. He probably won't even be in 2010. Given his current rate of development, we're looking at 2011 as a best case scenario. By that time, we'll be at the end of the "window to win", which is largely contingent on the contracts of Harang, Arroyo, Cordero, and Phillips (and no, not Andy). Cordero and Phillips are the only two currently locked up through 2012. I don't think anyone would argue that those 4 players won't continue to play a key role in if the Reds win or not.

If Stubbs is ready for 2011, then he's clearly late to the party. We need him to be ready for 2009, and there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. Unfortunately he does have more expecation and pressure as being a high 1st Round Pick, but it comes with the territory.

No one liked the pick at he time, you included doug, and it's obviously turned out to be a bad pick.

In a business and economcial stance, Drew Stubbs is deadweight loss, and we must treat him accordingly.

Dead weight? That's not just over dramatic, it's wrong. I hope the Reds challenge Drew and if he moves up to Chattanooga fast and if continues to get on base and play superior defense he has great value. They should have moved him harder last year.

[RedsManRick]

There is a long history of people not doing much their first 'half season'. Upton had time in instructional league in the fall of 2005. I think my point holds itself up fine. Polished hitter versus raw hitter. Not comparable.

Just a question, and I don't know the answer so this could bite me, but how many players drafted in the top 10 after 3 years of major college experience, were labeled 'raw' offensively, and went on to have much success?

I guess it all comes back to what the logic was on the pick itself. What does it say about a guy's talent that after 3 years of top college ball he's still raw? That in the year and a half since being drafted, he's among the lowest rated of his peers? That the ones rated lower were all drafted straight out of high school? Of course those guys were raw. Why was Stubbs raw? And why after 18 months why is he still raw? At what point does he stop getting the benefit of the doubt? At what point do you consider him falling behind expectation?

[SteelSD]

There is a long history of people not doing much their first 'half season'. Upton had time in instructional league in the fall of 2005. I think my point holds itself up fine.

Only if you refuse to understand the age differences between the two players. You've consistently used age comps when it suits your argument, so why is it ok to just ignore them now?

18-year old versus 22-year old at the same level. Not the same.

Polished hitter versus raw hitter. Not comparable.

Where is this "raw hitter" thing coming from? The criticism of Stubbs prior to the draft is that his skills didn't project to translate well to wood bats; not that he was "raw".

The difference between Longoria and Stubbs is that the former projected to hit and the latter didn't. That's quite different than "polished vs. raw". Instead, it's "projectible vs. 'if he hits'". And I think you know my stance on "if he hits" prospects.

Except Justin Upton was also being called the next Ken Griffey Jr and was a once in a generational type player then went out and was outperformed by Jay Bruce, Cameron Maybin, Colby Rasmus and Andrew McCutchen in the same league and it really wasn't that close.

Midwest League Ages:

Justin Upton: 18 years old
Jay Bruce: 19
Cameron Maybin: 19
Colby Rasmus: 19
Andrew McCutchen: Didn't play in the MWL

Prior to their MWL exposure Bruce and Rasmus already had 192 and 216 professional AB respectively. Both were within two weeks of having a full year on Upton prior to their MWL stints. Maybin is the closest age comp of the four (@5 months older), so that's probably as close to an "apples to apples" comparison as we get from your examples.

Yet, what does any of that have to do with a 22-year old Drew Stubbs (actually, 22.5 years old) at the same level? Nothing. They're all red herrings positioned to make Upton's "debut" look worse in comparision in order to attempt a stretch about how Stubbs' first season and a half actually hasn't been that bad. But bad it's been.

Stubbs is who he is at this moment. His questionable placement as the last of BA's "Top 100" is tied to his draft position and likely the concept of defensive tools and an "if he hits" mentality. Rick did an excellent job of properly identifying that Stubbs' current prospect ranking is nothing resembling good news. Of the nine players taken directly behind Stubbs, 66.7% of them are ranked higher than Stubbs according to BA. If we exclude the players younger than 21 last season, that number changes to 100%. Stubbs is going to be 24 years old in October.

If Drew Stubbs were in another team's system, I'm confident that he's a guy you'd be incredibly down on, doug. And considering his high IsoD game sans high Batting Average, coupled with a big K rate, I'm surprised that you're referring to him as a "hitter" rather than a "batter".

Do I think he will go Upton in terms of having a much better year than the previous one? Absolutely. I don't think he is going to go out and OPS .900, but he won't be playing in the Cal League either.... I think Stubbs will be fine and make him MLB debut mid to late 2009.

If Stubbs projects to even sniff the Show in 2009, then the Reds need to start him out at AA this season and he needs to produce numbers well beyond what we've seen so far. Should he start out in high-A ball and produce the same kind of numbers we've seen, there's really no hope for the kind of multiple-level jumps he'd need to show up at the MLB level anytime soon.

[dougdirt]

Only if you refuse to understand the age differences between the two players. You've consistently used age comps when it suits your argument, so why is it ok to just ignore them now?

18-year old versus 22-year old at the same level. Not the same.

Only if you refuse to grasp the point I was making.

Where is this "raw hitter" thing coming from? The criticism of Stubbs prior to the draft is that his skills didn't project to translate well to wood bats; not that he was "raw".

No, it was that his SWING, not his skills, that didn't project to translate well to wood bats. That is what we call raw, when someone needs to rework, or do a lot of work on a part of their game.

Midwest League Ages:

Justin Upton: 18 years old
Jay Bruce: 19
Cameron Maybin: 19
Colby Rasmus: 19
Andrew McCutchen: Didn't play in the MWL

Which still has little to do with the fact that one of those guys didn't perform up to his 'tools' and 'projected ability' right away.

Yet, what does any of that have to do with a 22-year old Drew Stubbs (actually, 22.5 years old) at the same level? Nothing. They're all red herrings positioned to make Upton's "debut" look worse in comparision in order to attempt a stretch about how Stubbs' first season and a half actually hasn't been that bad. But bad it's been.

It has to do with not performing up to your tools or projected ability.

Stubbs is who he is at this moment. His questionable placement as the last of BA's "Top 100" is tied to his draft position and likely the concept of defensive tools and an "if he hits" mentality. Rick did an excellent job of properly identifying that Stubbs' current prospect ranking is nothing resembling good news. Of the nine players taken directly behind Stubbs, 66.7% of them are ranked higher than Stubbs according to BA. If we exclude the players younger than 21 last season, that number changes to 100%. Stubbs is going to be 24 years old in October.

None of which has anything to do with Drew Stubbs ability going forward.

If Drew Stubbs were in another team's system, I'm confident that he's a guy you'd be incredibly down on, doug. And considering his high IsoD game sans high Batting Average, coupled with a big K rate, I'm surprised that you're referring to him as a "hitter" rather than a "batter".

Nah, he would be the same guy he is now. Raw at the plate, great in the field, but showing signs of improvement and coming off an injury. Personally, he wouldn't be in my top 100 list. He does fall between 100 and 125 though. In the first half of the season, Stubbs was more of a batter than hitter, but in the second half he was showing the complete package as he hit .303/.394/.512. His first half was incredibly poor, but he showed massive improvements.

If Stubbs projects to even sniff the Show in 2009, then the Reds need to start him out at AA this season and he needs to produce numbers well beyond what we've seen so far. Should he start out in high-A ball and produce the same kind of numbers we've seen, there's really no hope for the kind of multiple-level jumps he'd need to show up at the MLB level anytime soon.

I figure he starts out in High A and OPS's around .800 for the first half and gets a second half promotion to AA where in better hitting environments he raises his OPS a little bit then starts 2009 in AAA. Thats about what I see happening.

[SteelSD]

Only if you refuse to grasp the point I was making.

Your "point" was D.O.A. Both Rick and edabbs both killed your "point" already. I'm not sure why you don't know it's dead.

No, it was that his SWING, not his skills, that didn't project to translate well to wood bats. That is what we call raw, when someone needs to rework, or do a lot of work on a part of their game.

That's not "raw". That's "flawed". It's an "if he hits" scenario in a nutshell. You need to stay away from "if he hits" that high in the draft, particularly when you have pitching talent aplenty available at your slot. Stubbs was a poor pick. Poor. Like not good.

Which still has little to do with the fact that one of those guys didn't perform up to his 'tools' and 'projected ability' right away.

Red herrings don't bite, particularly when you're trying to evaluate 18 and 19 year-olds versus a guy three years older.

It has to do with not performing up to your tools or projected ability.

"It" has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, and everything to do with you wanting to distract folks from Stubbs' issues with the bat. You're producing comps that aren't comps from an age perspective, yet you'll use age comps whenever said age comps will prop up your prospect de' jour.

Age comps either matter or they don't. You choose which.

None of which has anything to do with Drew Stubbs ability going forward.

Yet your posts have nothing to do with Drew Stubbs going forward and everything to do with attempting to defend Drew Stubbs; who hasn't performed as a top pick should to this point.

If none of those players have anything to do with Drew Stubbs going into his age 23 season, then why would you possibly talk about them?

Nah, he would be the same guy he is now. Raw at the plate, great in the field, but showing signs of improvement and coming off an injury. Personally, he wouldn't be in my top 100 list. He does fall between 100 and 125 though. In the first half of the season, Stubbs was more of a batter than hitter, but in the second half he was showing the complete package as he hit .303/.394/.512. His first half was incredibly poor, but he showed massive improvements.

Again, there's the "raw". Stubbs is not "raw" with the bat. That's a construct of your imagination, as is "hitter" versus "batter".

I figure he starts out in High A and OPS's around .800 for the first half and gets a second half promotion to AA where in better hitting environments he raises his OPS a little bit then starts 2009 in AAA. Thats about what I see happening.

Wow. Around an .800 OPS in high-A ball at age 23 and a chance at a promotion to AA in 2008. I'm sure that's what you wanted for a college player selected with the 8th pick in the 2006 draft.

[dougdirt]

Go Drew Stubbs!

I am done with this.