The Cincy farm system is extremely top heavy. There are 2 bats that you can say have a very good shot at making an impact in the majors. There is one arm. Cueto and Wood look good, but they are single A guys. And I know you have a sick man crush on Ravin, but he is still extremely young.Originally Posted by dougdirt
I don't think Cincy is so pitching rich that they can focus on hitting. Pitching tends to flame out more than hitting, so you need a greater population.
Losing Beltran and Damon wouldn't have been so bad if they had gotten quality returns. They essentially got nothing for Damon and Teahen was the only decent player they got for Beltran.
in 17 years their farm has done squat for them.
I did find something interesting though. In 1997, in the second round, the Kansas City Royals selected...
Dane Sardinha.
They are a monument to incompetence. Their failure is staggering. 4 years with a record above .500 out of the last 17. Even the Reds were better than that.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
IMO, it's absurd to base an organizational ranking on three guys, which is what BP did. BP probably ranks Stubbs somewhere in the teens among 2006 draftees. I don't have a negative thing to say about Cueto and Wood, but plenty of other organizations have arms like them and then there's a sizable drop to #4, either Lecure or Ravin (neither of whom is a well-regarded prospect).
Most of the Reds' second-tier prospects were in the rookie leagues in 2006. Get into guys who played full season ball (outside the org's top guys) and there's some bullpen depth in the high minors, defenders with serious bat questions like Chris Dickerson and Paul Janish, Lecure and who? It's not a pretty sight.
A small bit of injury and ineffectiveness from the organization's top six and the threadbare state of the supporting cast will be exposed. To me, a top 10 organization has got 15-20 B- or better prospects and depth in the high minors. The Reds don't. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. BP's just allowed a handful of bright lights to obscure the darkness behind them.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
TRF, I still dont see what that has anything to do with what is currently in their farm system. It has no relevence whatsoever to it.
We have completely different views on what a system should produce then. I could care less about a bunch of spare parts (B- prospects in the upper minors) who probably will get a cup of coffee one day. The Reds on the other hand have some top end talent with Bruce, Bailey and Votto. Do the Reds not have depth like some other teams? Surely they dont. But do most of those teams have anything resembling Bailey, Bruce and Votto, who is arguably the top trio of prospects in ALL of baseball? No, they dont. As for where the rank Stubbs among 2006 picks, I dont really know. I dont want to count through the Top 100, but I could really care less where he ranks among 2006 draft picks. He is a Red now, and that is all that I am overly worried about.
As for most of the Reds second tier guys being in Rookie ball, this is true, but most of them will be in A or A+ next year and on a slightly fast track, becuase outside of Loo, Ravin and Francisco, they were all college guys. I have never understood the whole "closer the better" with prospects. Yeah, there are bumps in the road that guys hit and some guys never get over them.... but in the end, its all about what will you do for me when you get to the bigs, and in that respect, I dont care a whole lot if some guy is in AA or in Billings. Who projects to be a better player when they get to the bigs? If its the guy in Billings, then it matters absolutely none to me that the other guy is "closer".
Of course it does.
You yourself say that Hochevar will be there soon enough. Really? the 1st pick in last years draft? the guy with 15 professional innings under his belt?
The Royals maintain an awfulness about them. Maybe Luke Hochevar is all that, but 15 innings ain't the same measuring stick as 200 AB's
Which brings me back to Stubbs. Why is any list of Reds top prospects showing him higher than the four guys from his own team that out hit him?
Is his defense Mays-like?
Do the other four guys have iron gloves?
cuz right now, the bats aren't even close and Stubbs looks to be 3-4 years away.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
Baseball is a lot more than just your bat. Lets look at this here.
Drew Stubbs plays a premuim position on the field, and he plays it better thaan 90% of the guys out there. He has lots of tools that the other guys dont project to have. None of those guys project to have the power he does, nor the speed that he carries with him. Valaika probably wont stick at SS, and when he moves, his bat becomes a lot less impressive. Logan Parker is an advanced college hitter. He doesnt project to grow much more. He obviously could do so, and I hope for one that he does. The fact is, a major league CF OPS is averaging about .750. If Drew Stubbs projects to do that in the majors in 2 or 3 years, and still plays the defense he does now, he is going to be a VERY good player for this team.
Today's B- is tomorrow's top 100 prospect. Case in point, Joey Votto. It's amazing how fast a second tier prospect can get hot with a big season in the high minors. The Reds simply don't have enough guys like that to offset any trouble with their top prospects. It's what cut the organization off at the knees year after year earlier in the decade. Cueto and Wood help, a lot. It means the Reds don't have to put all their eggs in Bailey's basket. It was Andy Pettitte, not the more highly rated Brien Taylor or Matt Drews, who broke through for the Yankees. Supposedly Wilfredo Rodriguez was a better prospect than Roy Oswalt. Once upon a time Dontrelle Willis was ranked well behind Juan Cruz and Ben Christensen in the Cubs organization. Wasn't Tom Glavine supposedly inferior to Pete Smith and Tommy Greene back when they were in the minors?
It's not so much "closer the better," as it is "most low minors phenoms amount to nothing." Obviously the idea is to be good every year, but there's a certain amount of truth to the notion that it doesn't mean much until you do it in AA. That's great news for Bailey and Votto. There's little doubt in my mind that Bruce will put a hurt on AA when he gets there in 2007 or 2008, but if I'm being honest, that's partially me not allowing the notion of him struggling to enter my mind.
I'll go a little Nick Hornby here. Some new, fresh prospect always seems more alluring than the more advanced prospect you know, but it's not real. The new kids have just as much trouble in their futures in most cases as the AA and AAA kids have had in their recent past. It's just that you haven't had to see those flaws yet so you can pretend that they aren't there. The game of baseball eternally pretend kids at lower levels have higher ceilings than the almost-men in the high minors.
And when those kids become almost-men there will be a new batch of kids who have higher ceilings than they do. It's the circle of life.
What actually churns players out? Branch Rickey figured that one out when he created the minors and the answer has never changed -- depth. You may think you've found the next big thing. You may even be morally convinced of it. Yet you better have more than a next big thing or two. You better have a lot of guys who might be something. You better stack them like cord wood because pretty much every major leaguer has a story about some guy who was better back in the minors, but didn't make it. You better have a Barry Larkin on hand for when your Kurt Stillwell doesn't pan out.
Part of the genius of Branch Rickey was that he knew what he didn't know. He didn't pretend to know exactly what kids would materialize. He collected piles of them and let them sort themselves out, never taking it for granted that a kid would make it before he actually made it. That's why I care about depth, particularly at levels where performance really means something in terms of projectibility. It's what's made every great system in the history of baseball.
Last edited by M2; 02-21-2007 at 07:53 PM.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Depth costs money - the 2007 draft may be as good an opportunity in recent history for the Reds organization to add depth, but they'll need to have a draft budget close to 5 million - a big jump from recent years. I hope there is this draft displays a commitment to player development.
I am with you on that one. The Reds really need to take the best players available at every step along the way this year. This years draft is supposed to be quite deep, and with so many picks in the first 150, we really need to make a splash on the talent while its still there for the picking.
which is why it wasn't a very good draft. The top two picks were reaches based on tools over performance and the other picks were mostly guys with good performance but limited projection.
Stubbs really needs a banner year that sees him being in Sarasota by June.
The Reds chances in 2007/08 might look a little different if they had spent the cash for Markakis and bit the bullet and paid Kazmir.
Last edited by flyer85; 02-22-2007 at 09:59 AM.
Problem is I doubt the sensibilities of the guys making the decisions on who is the best player available. It really goes to the crux of our disagreement.
Dubito Ergo Cogito Ergo Sum.
What do you guys feel determine a successful draft. I mean this past draft if a say Valakia and Loo turn into productive mlb players but stubbs and watson dont, is it considered a good class? Homer Bailey could become a great pitcher but if everyone else in his draft class fails, is it a good draft?
Loo was actually a 2005 Draft pick. He was a draft and follow, and the Reds signed him prior to him re-entering the 2006 draft. As for a drafts success, I guess it all depends on who you ask. If a draft only produces 1 MLB player, he better be a star.... although I have a little more hope for some 2004 guys past Bailey than most. Lets say Valaika and Ravin turn into productive pros but Stubbs and Watson burn out around AA, then I would say it was a productive draft, but not all will see it that way.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote