Time to draft some offense

[Kc61]

Reds A ball teams seem great this year. They have offense and pitching. The upper level teams, however, mirror the parent club -- short on hitting.

This may explain why the Reds were anxious to draft guys like Stubbs and Valaika with early picks last year, rather than all pitching. I hope they are looking for some power bats in the draft this year.

And pitching, of course.

[TOBTTReds]

I think you pick the best players. We don't have good pitching at the MLB level because we drafted pitching. We have it because we traded away offense (Jose Guillen, Wily Mo...) and signed FA's.

[Redmachine2003]

I think you take the best player available in the top three rounds and then you work on filling out the rest of the rookie ball rosters with the best player at the positions of needs.

[TOBTTReds]

I think you take the best player available in the top three rounds and then you work on filling out the rest of the rookie ball rosters with the best player at the positions of needs.

I like that idea as well.

[Kc61]

Except you don't say "pitching, pitching, pitching, pitching" when your team/system is so weak offensively. You take the best player available but try to have a good mix overall, including offensive guys at different positions, some righty some lefty. And some pitchers.

[AmarilloRed]

We needed starting pitching desperately the last 5 years so we developed that. Now that we need hitting,we will draft position players.

[TeamSelig]

Draft best prospect available. If down the road we have 10 great starting pitchers, we can trade some of them for huge bats. Works the other way around as well.

[camisadelgolf]

I think it makes no sense to draft based on need because you have no idea what you'll need in the five years or so it takes to develop the players anyway.

[Superdude]

Finally. Someone who has a draft philosophy other than: spend every pick on pitchers because of the market.

[edabbs44]

Best player, with a pitching emphasis. If you go straight best player, you could end up with another couple of OFers with your top picks when you already have Hamilton, Dunn, Stubbs and Bruce in the system. I don't think many of us would be happy with another OF pick, even if he was the best player available unless he was head and shoulders above the rest of the field.

[dougdirt]

I wouldn't mind him. Dunn is gone as early as this year and almost crtainly after 2008. I don't look at him as being in the Reds plans past the next 2 years. Hamilton, as much as I hope he is something, its WAY to early to make a judgement on that. That leaves Stubbs and Bruce.

[jmcclain19]

With the very first pick in the draft, you take the best, safest choice available.

First round picks have by a huge margin, the highest percentage chance of making the bigs - don't blow it on picking Colt Griffin or Chris Gruler.

From then on the first couple of rounds - take the best available - like others have stated in this thread - if you draft on need you'll make compromises & unwise choices - and who knows how things will shake out. Going into the 2004 season - the Reds best bats in the high minors - with tickets punched as Reds for the next decade - were Brandon Larson, Dernell Stenson & Steve Smitherman. Just three years later that looks pretty foolish.

[camisadelgolf]

I'm as excited about Stubbs and Bruce as anyone, but the fact is, they haven't done anything in the Major Leagues yet. Best player available is always the best philosophy (in baseball), in my opinion.

[Red Heeler]

I agree with the BPA philosophy with a bit of an addendum. Skills should be more heavily weighted than tools. In the early rounds, I would rather draft hitters who have demonstrated plate discipline and pitchers who can pitch (not throw), over athletes who IF they learn these skills will have a higher ceiling. The later rounds are the place for drafting athletes who might become baseball players.

[REDREAD]

The Reds tried to draft pitching heavy over the last few years, and got very little out of it. Now in all fairness, the minor league instruction and guys running the draft have changed, so this isn't a totally valid comparison anymore.

But look at the successes they've had in player development. Even from guys that weren't originally drafted by them.. They are largely position players.

I think you take the best player available in the draft, BUT you also have to consider the teams' developmental strengths. Why pick a guy like Ryan Wagner #1, with the plan of changing his arm angle, mechanics, etc.. That doesn't seem logical, especially when the organization doesn't have a sound track record of transforming guys like that. I've never heard a success story from the Reds where they changed a guy's arm angle, and he suddenly got better. Maybe it's happened, but I don't think that is their forte.

In short, pick guys with holes that your oganization can fix.

BTW, I'm so glad that DanO is gone. His arbitrary rules, like always take the first strike, and everyone must learn a changeup, etc were moronic. There's no "one size fits all" approach that works on everyone. DanO would've kept Dibble in the minors until he learned a changeup.