Turn Off Ads?
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 63

Thread: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

  1. #31
    Worst Behavior. reds44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,370

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    Curious Austin,

    What exactly about Stubbs do you like so much? Is it just his upside? How long can you let him live off of the potential. Eventually the potential has to amount to something. Would you say my Chris Dickerson comparison is unfair?

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #32
    One and a half men Patrick Bateman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,874

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by reds44 View Post
    Curious Austin,

    What exactly about Stubbs do you like so much? Is it just his upside? How long can you let him live off of the potential. Eventually the potential has to amount to something. Would you say my Chris Dickerson comparison is unfair?
    What I like is that he can play one of the most skillful positions at an extremely high level, while also carrying monumental potential. It's not all potential with Stubbs, he alrady does posess major league skills. The fielding in itself makes it very likely that he can play as a 4th OF'der down the line even if his bat doesn't come along to the fullest potential.

    One point that I find important, is that coming out of college, Stubbs was known as being a 'project' and that his power skills were raw. it's not like he was expected to come into the league blasting homers everywhere. I find that important to a degree. He was supposed to be slowly blossom, so for that reason, I have excercised patience in this instance. Knowing his other tools, I'm willing to wait a little longer for that power to come into play while his body continues to mature. Plus Stubbs has always been a little bit better than Dickerson potential wise in basically every aspect.

    Dickserson is indeed cut from the same cloth. The one main diffreence is that Stubbs has 3 years on Dickerson. Dickerson too had raw power, but at this point, he's at the age where there's little projection left. Stubbs has a couple of more years before that power potential should be written off. I actually like Dickerson, and I'm hopeful that he can turn into a reserve OF'der next season if his bat comes on.

    The point is, that with Stubbs' exceptional ability to field, he doesn't need to reach his fullest hitting potential to be starting calibre. For much of the other Reds' prospects things need to go absolutely perfect for them to be starting calibre players. That's not true for Stubbs. He's one of the few guys with all-star potential, but if his power doesn't fully develop (but is there for say 15 homers), and he can continue his decent plate discipline, he can be a very nice player to have around.

    I can certianly understand arguments for putting a guy like Watson over Stubbs, and I found myself with a tough decision there, but putting guys with ceilings as back-ups/fringe starters ahead of him really bugs me.
    Last edited by Patrick Bateman; 06-13-2007 at 01:55 AM.

  4. #33
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,761

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by Austin Kearns View Post
    I honestly can not think of one reason to rate Rosales ahead of Stubbs, and I'm trying to be as objective as possible.
    Here is why IMO. When I look at a prospect, I try to envision what his role will be on the major league team. Its why I may give more credence to a relief pitcher than a 5 tool OF in some cases. IMO a guy who can come in and pitch effectively in the 7th inning is more valuable than Reggie Taylor or Dewayne Wise even though when looking at them as young raw players the tools possessed by a Taylor or Wise suggests they provide more hope than say a Todd Coffey or a Scott Sullivan. Truth is, upon reaching the big leagues, the guy who can fill the more critical role is more valuablle even if his "tools" may not suggest that he is.

    In the specific cases of Stubbs versus Rosales its simple for me. Rosales has some ability to play in the IF while having a bat that may prove useful. Generally guys who can play in the IF (even if it isn't very well) have a chance to move into the OF and be ok out there (there are tons of examples). OTOH, guys who are outfielders by trade rarely can make the move to the IF with as much success (with the exception being a move to 1B). So taking that into account, I think that for Stubbs to have much value at all, he'll have to develop into a legitimate everyday CF who actually hits enough to justify his being there (as opposed to a guy who plays by default as is the case with some CF these days). I personally don't see evidence yet that Stubbs will do that. At this point all that I see is a younger version of Dewayne Wise or Reggie Taylor. A guy who can go get 'em with speed and some power that doesn't look like it will emerge frequently enough in game sitiuations to warrant more than a role as a 5th OF who comes in for defense on a double switch or starts occasionally to give a guy a rest. That isn't all that valuable and can be plucked off of any AAA roster with regularity.

    Rosales on the other hand, simply by virtue of his versatility (I know that he isn't the best defender and that I am projecting some of this "versatility" on him, but with prospects projecting what they'll do in the majors is really what we're doing) I could see ending up in a supersub role. He may not. He may wash out. But when I look toward 2010 or so, I'd rather have Ryan Freel (which I optimistically project for Rosales) than Dewayne Wise (which I project for Stubbs).
    Last edited by mth123; 06-13-2007 at 04:41 AM.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

    Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS

  5. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    9,836

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    The only "fringe/backup" player on my list would be Turner. Middle relievers are easy to come by you say? Ask Wayne Krivsky about that one.

    Drew Stubbs has done nothing since he was drafted. NOTHING.
    You talk about him being able to compete at a high level? What level is that? The Big 12? I like high ceiling guys over safe players most of the time. In fact, I was one of the few people on this board DEFENDING the Homer Bailey pick in a year where it was considered taboo drafting a HS pitcher in the first round. However, if the past fifteen years of the Reds organization has taught you anything, its that you have to consider a player's track record as well. You CANNOT just throw people up there because they showed a lot of potential before they were professionals. Yes, a lot of the players I listed washed out because of injuries, but that is exactly the kind of risk associated with HS pitchers, and why I WILL NOT consider Lotzkar, Ravin, or any other HS pitcher for a top 10 prospect list until they have succeeded in a full professional season without a devastating injury.
    Go BLUE!!!

  6. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    13,459

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    After Bailey, Bruce and Votto, I see a system with some depth of good prospects, but I would have a hard time ranking them because nobody stands out. All the good ones either have had spotty performances of late (Cueto, Wood) or are college guys now at very low levels (Watson, Valaika) or have generally not been projected that high (Fisher). Hopefully some will emerge, but it's hard to tell which ones.

    As for Stubbs, my only comment is that I'd like a dollar for every five tool athlete who failed because he ultimately couldn't hit. Hitting is usually the toughest skill to develop and the real top guys can do it. So far, Stubbs looks like a great athlete who -- like so many other great athletes in baseball -- may not have the bat. So if I did rank the players, he wouldn't be very high at this point.

  7. #36
    One and a half men Patrick Bateman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,874

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by Benihana View Post
    The only "fringe/backup" player on my list would be Turner. Middle relievers are easy to come by you say? Ask Wayne Krivsky about that one.

    Drew Stubbs has done nothing since he was drafted. NOTHING.
    You talk about him being able to compete at a high level? What level is that? The Big 12? I like high ceiling guys over safe players most of the time. In fact, I was one of the few people on this board DEFENDING the Homer Bailey pick in a year where it was considered taboo drafting a HS pitcher in the first round. However, if the past fifteen years of the Reds organization has taught you anything, its that you have to consider a player's track record as well. You CANNOT just throw people up there because they showed a lot of potential before they were professionals. Yes, a lot of the players I listed washed out because of injuries, but that is exactly the kind of risk associated with HS pitchers, and why I WILL NOT consider Lotzkar, Ravin, or any other HS pitcher for a top 10 prospect list until they have succeeded in a full professional season without a devastating injury.
    All of those points are more than fair, but on thsi thread, I have seen the majority of posters base Stubbs' ramking almost entirely on stats rather than tools/fielding.

    Maybe I overrate tools and ceiling which I can more than accept, but I don't see what there is to gain with a Medlock or Rosales. If the highest projection for a player is a middle reliever/back-up, then I don't see why all the fuss, because there's a pretty good chance they won't even reach their modest potential.

    Middle relievers are easy to find. Krivsky has actually found plenty of middle relievers. He just hasn't found anyone good that can pitch the late innings. What I see in Medlock is more of the same. A guy you might be able to throw out there in the 6th inning, but not a guy that you want throwing in high leverage situations. And that is basically his ceiling. Guys like that are a dime a dozen.

    I'll I'm sayng is that I prefer prospects that have hope for some level of success (ie. raw prospects with high ceilings) over guys who have basically zero shot at it (Rosales, Turner, etc.). Stubbs' chances of reaching his potential are not phenomenal, but at least there is something there that gives you a chance. I can see rating guys like Watson over him when they have shown potential and success, but I don't see the point of rating potential role players that every team can find with ease in the top 10.

  8. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    9,836

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by Austin Kearns View Post
    All of those points are more than fair, but on thsi thread, I have seen the majority of posters base Stubbs' ramking almost entirely on stats rather than tools/fielding.

    Maybe I overrate tools and ceiling which I can more than accept, but I don't see what there is to gain with a Medlock or Rosales. If the highest projection for a player is a middle reliever/back-up, then I don't see why all the fuss, because there's a pretty good chance they won't even reach their modest potential.

    Middle relievers are easy to find. Krivsky has actually found plenty of middle relievers. He just hasn't found anyone good that can pitch the late innings. What I see in Medlock is more of the same. A guy you might be able to throw out there in the 6th inning, but not a guy that you want throwing in high leverage situations. And that is basically his ceiling. Guys like that are a dime a dozen.

    I'll I'm sayng is that I prefer prospects that have hope for some level of success (ie. raw prospects with high ceilings) over guys who have basically zero shot at it (Rosales, Turner, etc.). Stubbs' chances of reaching his potential are not phenomenal, but at least there is something there that gives you a chance. I can see rating guys like Watson over him when they have shown potential and success, but I don't see the point of rating potential role players that every team can find with ease in the top 10.

    That's fine. I never rated Rosales or Turner in the Top 10. I don't even consider Rosales a prospect at all. Ditto for Steve Kelly (Red Daddy, I don't know where you got that from).
    Go BLUE!!!

  9. #38
    One and a half men Patrick Bateman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,874

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by Benihana View Post
    That's fine. I never rated Rosales or Turner in the Top 10. I don't even consider Rosales a prospect at all. Ditto for Steve Kelly (Red Daddy, I don't know where you got that from).
    Fine, top 15 or whatever. So what is it that you exacty see in Turner to merit a top 15 choice?

  10. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    9,836

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    I see a 2B that had success at the highest level in college and, unlike Drew Stubbs, has MAINTAINED that level of success at Dayton, posting an OPS of .840. Also, by all accounts he has a reasonable glove at 2B.

    Don't get me wrong, I doubt that Turner is anything more than a fringe prospect, but he has only one year of professional ball under his belt, and has so far done nothing but produce, more so than any other player in last year's draft other than Watson and Valaika. IMO he, along with those other two, deserves a promotion to Sarasota, and merits a ranking in the 11-20 range in the Reds organization.

    FWIW, anybody with over a year of professional ball under their belt that ranks outside of the top 10 is nothing more than a fringe prospect, at least, at this point.
    Go BLUE!!!

  11. #40
    One and a half men Patrick Bateman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,874

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by Benihana View Post
    I see a 2B that had success at the highest level in college and, unlike Drew Stubbs, has MAINTAINED that level of success at Dayton, posting an OPS of .840. Also, by all accounts he has a reasonable glove at 2B.

    Don't get me wrong, I doubt that Turner is anything more than a fringe prospect, but he has only one year of professional ball under his belt, and has so far done nothing but produce, more so than any other player in last year's draft other than Watson and Valaika. IMO he, along with those other two, deserves a promotion to Sarasota, and merits a ranking in the 11-20 range in the Reds organization.

    FWIW, anybody with over a year of professional ball under their belt that ranks outside of the top 10 is nothing more than a fringe prospect, at least, at this point.

    I might agree with you if Turner was really tearing the cover off the ball. His .840 OPS is nice, but knowing his limited potential, it's not enough to make up for it in my opinion.

    That's where I like to use stats for prospects. If he was performing so well despite the scouting reports, I would have to really assume that the reports are dead wrong. In Turner's case, he's playing pretty solidly, but isn't doing so fantastic that he's proving the scouts wrong. If he was OPSing around .900, then i would be right there with you. But as of now, with the overall package, I don't see that he's done enough to merit true prospect status. To me, the only reason he is getting any kind of publicity here, is that his stats look better by comparsion, rather than actually playing well enough to really extinguish some of the doubts about his tools.

    I agree though, it would be nice to see him in Sarasota in the not so distant future to see if his hitting skills are for real.

  12. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,520

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    Going into tonight's games, Drew Stubbs had 60 hits, 17 for extra bases. That's under 30% of his hits. Adam Rosales had 68 hits, 33 for extra bases, or very close to 50%. I would put Stubbs higher on the list because of potential and ceiling, though I become more dubious about him every day. But Rosales has, by the above measure, considerably more power. And IMHO anybody who has almost half of his hits go for extra bases is a serious prospect. What Rosales needs above all right now is a promotion so that he, Krivsky, and the rest of us can get a better read on his potential. 50% of hits for extra bases marks players with real ability. Don't overlook Rosales.

  13. #42
    Member Superdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,788

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    What Rosales needs above all right now is a promotion so that he, Krivsky, and the rest of us can get a better read on his potential. 50% of hits for extra bases marks players with real ability. Don't overlook Rosales.
    If Rosales was still a shortstop, he'd be getting plenty of prospect props from me, but the move to first is what killed his "shimmer". I'm not saying he should still be at short, but a guy's cieling drops pretty drastically when he falls across the entire defensive spectrum. He's gonna have to keep hitting and hitting a lot if he wants to be anything more than a platoon/back up guy right now. He definitely needs a promotion though.

  14. #43
    One and a half men Patrick Bateman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,874

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by HokieRed View Post
    Going into tonight's games, Drew Stubbs had 60 hits, 17 for extra bases. That's under 30% of his hits. Adam Rosales had 68 hits, 33 for extra bases, or very close to 50%. I would put Stubbs higher on the list because of potential and ceiling, though I become more dubious about him every day. But Rosales has, by the above measure, considerably more power. And IMHO anybody who has almost half of his hits go for extra bases is a serious prospect. What Rosales needs above all right now is a promotion so that he, Krivsky, and the rest of us can get a better read on his potential. 50% of hits for extra bases marks players with real ability. Don't overlook Rosales.
    Being a 24 year old 1st basemen, his hitting doesn't warrant propsect status for me considering he's doing it in high A. If he continues doing it in AA, he may deserve some recognition, but as SD said, he needs to really hit if he's going to be a 1st basemen. Not being a SS killed his chances in my mind.

  15. #44
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,761

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    Quote Originally Posted by Austin Kearns View Post
    Being a 24 year old 1st basemen, his hitting doesn't warrant propsect status for me considering he's doing it in high A. If he continues doing it in AA, he may deserve some recognition, but as SD said, he needs to really hit if he's going to be a 1st basemen. Not being a SS killed his chances in my mind.
    I don't get the impression that he is at 1B because that is the long term plan for him. I think they have players for all the other spots that they want to look at and 1B is sparse in the lower part of the organization. I think they do know that he is not ever going to be an everyday SS again and moved him off of the position to get a look at some one else. I have him on my list based primarily on the fact that he has played SS, is now playing 1B and I suspect that he will end up being a multi-position plug-in type who has enough bat to be useful. If his future is as a full-time 1B, then I agree and he not only drops out of my top 15, but probably out of my top 30.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

    Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS

  16. #45
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,963

    Re: Modified Reds Top 15 Prospects

    I think the odds are nil that Votto is called up this season. Traded, maybe; but called up? Not a chance. The guy is the opposite of a Krivsky player.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

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.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25