Rotoworld Top 150 Prospects

[M2]

It was a weak draft

I daresay that's a vastly premature conclusion. I'll guarantee you that a good number of players drafted after Stubbs have way better careers than Aaron Rowand.

Of course, if the criterion for a disappointment is that the player didn't end up outperforming every draftee taken after him -- as sometimes appears to be the case -- then he, like most draftees of all time, will be a disappointment.

Well, you'll have to discuss that criteria with someone who has it. For my part, I'd be real happy with a Mike Cameron career from Stubbs. Cameron's always good (with the exception of 1998). Rowand's been below average as often as he's been above it.

[lollipopcurve]

I daresay that's a vastly premature conclusion. I'll guarantee you that a good number of players drafted after Stubbs have way better careers than Aaron Rowand.

True enough -- too soon to say if it was as weak as it was forecast to be. Still, the fact that a healthy handful of post slot 7 draftees will have a better career than Aaron Rowand has something to do with the fact that something on the order of 1500 players were drafted after Stubbs. That tells us little about the strength of the draft, and, in terms of evaluating Stubbs' career, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

For my part, I'd be real happy with a Mike Cameron career from Stubbs. Cameron's always good (with the exception of 1998). Rowand's been below average as often as he's been above it.

Sure, a Cameron career would be better. Like I said, I'll take league-average offense and excellent defense. Whether that's Cameron, Rowand or Denorfia comparable, I figure it's good for the Reds, no matter where the guy was picked.

[M2]

Sure, a Cameron career would be better. Like I said, I'll take league-average offense and excellent defense. Whether that's Cameron, Rowand or Denorfia comparable, I figure it's good for the Reds, no matter where the guy was picked.

Ideally you don't get many top 10 picks and, when you do have one, you want the kid to round into a high quality player. Rowand/Cesar Geronimo types are role players. They're fine if you surround them with star quality, but I'd rather find them lower in the draft. I sincerely hope Stubbs turns out better.

[Caveat Emperor]

Of course, if the criterion for a disappointment is that the player didn't end up outperforming every draftee taken after him -- as sometimes appears to be the case -- then he, like most draftees of all time, will be a disappointment.

He doesn't have to outperform all the other people drafted behind him, but I'd definately like to see something more out of a top-10 pick than what he's shown so far, and definately more than a below league-average offensive center fielder.

Weak draft or not, you've gotta make high picks count.

[lollipopcurve]

Weak draft or not, you've gotta make high picks count.

I understand the sentiment, but if, in fact, the 2006 draft turns out similar to the 2000 draft (and I'm not trying to make the case that it will), Stubbs' failure will be seen as evidence of weak top-end talent as a whole, not as a poor selection.