'When I'm not longer rapping, I want to open up an ice cream parlor and call myself Scoop Dogg.'
-Snoop on his retirement
Your Mom is happy.
He is on the roster today.
06/27/2007 Zack Cozart Player Addition Added to the Dragons roster after being selected by the Cincinnati Reds in the second round of the 2007 First Year Player Draft.
Though I'm open to the notion that AA might be a better fit and I'd certainly consider it. One of my concerns about viewing Chattanooga as an offensive paradise is that it's a hitter's park in a pitcher's league. My guess is it would be a pitcher's park in the Texas League.
That's almost always the way it works. I keep hoping the Reds will seek out a better way of doing business.Originally Posted by flyer85
Who's Stubbs bashing? He's been awful, but that's just a statement of fact. My priority is the Reds get something for that pick. It doesn't have to come from Stubbs reaching the majors in a Reds uniform. Most prospects don't make it, meaning that you'd do well to trade a good number of them while the iron is hot. That's just realpolitik and all I'm suggesting is the Reds try to heat the iron in Stubbs' case.Originally Posted by dougdirt
I'd have to dig around to be 100% positive, but I'm pretty sure what we're seeing with Stubbs right now does not happen frequently to college players in low A the season after their drafted (at least not to the ones who go onto become quality major leaguers).
Technically you never give up on your development team's ability to reach anyone in your pipeline and I'm not suggesting the Reds do that in Stubbs' case. I just don't think it should be the Reds' priority. In order for Stubbs to become a critical piece to a deal that brings the Reds anything (arm, catcher, CF) something has to be done to restore his market value (currently residing in the tank). I'm arguing for the Reds to give themselves that option. Given the overvalued nature of prospects in the current market, I'd be quite interested in having a few to deal this winter, particularly with Eric Milton's contract coming off the books.Originally Posted by lollipopcurve
Jay Bruce is untouchable. Drew Stubbs should be very touchable and it's mostly a matter of making sure other teams want to get their hands on him.
Very good point. Though shame on the Reds for trotting him out there with a condition that's put his game into ruin if that's case. That's just foolish and it's potentially costing the franchise a valuable asset. When you've got a player with a medical condition that's severely dragging down his performance, it's time to DL him.Originally Posted by lollipopcurve
Let's dig through risk vs. reward for a moment. I'm fairly confident in stating that the number of college players who then take two to three years in the minors to show proficiency with the stick and then go onto to become productive major leaguers is exceedingly tiny. In fact, I'd be shocked if it included much of anyone who came out of major collegiate programs like UT. Those kids have been coached up and faced three years of prime competition before they ever touch the minors. I can see where a kid from a smaller school in a lesser conference might take a while to adjust.Originally Posted by lollipopcurve
So I think you've got some fairly major risk associated with Stubbs right there in a "keep him" scenario. You're essentially hoping for him to be a bit of a unique creature.
I still don't see where falling flat on his face in high A is worse that what he's already doing, falling flat on his face in low A. And I don't know of too many people who's confidence is improved by a demotion. That strikes me as no confidence vote from the organization.
I don't think of him as nothing but a trading chip, but I want to have him as a potential chip. He wasn't eligible for a trade until earlier this month and already, one year after he was picked, his trade value has tanked due to his performance.
The team can worry about Stubbs' development in 2008 if he's still its property. Right now, the organization ought to employ some basic asset management/marketing strategy. How can you turn Stubbs back into a valuable asset that will draw interest from the market? I know it's not the stuff of "gee whiz" baseball melodrama, but the Reds are in the competitive sports industry.
So you've got the risk associated with keeping him. I'm not sure you can screw him up much more than he already is, so I'm not seeing a lot of risk in promoting him from that standpoint.
Yet you do have the potential reward of getting real value (in terms of major league performance) by dealing your top 2006 draft pick. Maybe you can make something out of Stubbs in three years, but maybe you can polish him up over the next two months. I can tell you which plan has got fewer variables. My priority would be Stubbs' immediate value. Success there and you've got reward options abound. Plus, success there and it wouldn't exactly hurt Stubbs' development either.
No risk, no reward. Stubbs currently isn't yielding any rewards, so what are you willing to risk to change that?
Last edited by M2; 06-28-2007 at 06:30 PM.
He'll probably be all right.
My theory on lower-level pitching is that so much of it is too wild to even follow a scouting report. With Stubbs being such an aggressive hitter, I believe his numbers will improve as he moves up. How's that for crazy?
Just a note on one we passed on to take Stubbs. Max Scherzer, 2006 Diamondbacks pick from Missouri, went 6 scoreless in his last start, striking out 11, at AA. 2.45 ERA for the year. If you're looking for a comparable prospect in Reds system, probably would be Cueto, though Scherzer is having success at a higher level already.
Seriously do we really need to bring up every player we 'passed on' everytime they do well?
My turn: Just a note on one we passed on to take Barry Larkin. Barry Bonds, 1985 Pirates pick from Arizona State, went on to break the all time HR record and win 7 Most Valuable Player Awards, and it probably should have been 9.
The Reds passed on Jesus Christ in the 1983 draft. Can you just imagine if they used a pick on that guy? People would fill the stadium every night just to watch his miracles on the field. But instead, we have to live with the knowledge that the Reds used a pick on someone else who arguably died for our sins: Chris Sabo.
That great 70's scouting team passed on Mike Schimdt...Buddy Bell and Dave Parker.
If you were not small and fast (MS, BB) and had baggage (DP) you were not a Reds player. I venture to say after 1970-71.....the Reds scouting and drafting for the minors for pretty much the rest of the decade....was worse than anything DO and WK have done already. Seriously......it was all HS players.....and they all had to run fast......they figured if KLU could make Concepcion and Geronimo into hitters....he could make anyone a hitter.
They pissed on Moneyball type of players.
Here's the thing with Stubbs.
He was a high risk, low reward proposition. There were obvious warning signs regarding his inability to make contact on a regular basis. Everyone knew it going in.
If the Reds were drafting late in the first round, or didn't have a first round pick & took Stubbs with a supplemental pick, that's fine. But the Reds took him in a year when they had a top 10 pick. #8 to be exact. Other than the first 7 guys drafted, the Reds could have taken anyone. #8 is way too early to be reaching on a pick. And there can't be any doubt that Stubbs was/is a reach. Especially in an organization that already had Junior and Dunn at the ML level, and Jay Bruce in the low minors. The Reds didn't need another OF as much as they needed a bona fide pitching, MI, or C prospect.
If (and with each passing day, that "if" is growing exponentially) Stubbs manages to find a way to make regular contact, then maybe the Reds will have a nice role player 3-4 years down the road. #8 is way to high of a pick to be coming up with a long shot role player.
Drew's 2007 YTD stats are enough to make a grown man cry. No power, lots of Ks, and a so-so SB rate. That sounds a lot like the second coming of Kerry Robinson or Curtis Godwin.
Edit: FWIW, here are the 2007 YTD numbers that my cyber #1 pick is putting up. BBs and Ks are basically a push, there's ample evidence of power, and much more efficient on the base paths. Spent time in one of the big NCAA baseball conferences, and has converted nicely to a MI slot. Not a bad pick for a guy who doesn't even have a BA subscription, eh?
Last edited by 15fan; 07-02-2007 at 09:55 AM.
Actually, the reason he was taken so high was because of his high reward potential. The understanding was that he was always going to strike out a lot, but he would make up for it with the rest of his game. At the time of the draft, I don't think anyone considered the pick a reach since many people (so-called 'experts' included) agreed that he was either the best or second-best position player available in the entire draft.
Although Dunn, Griffey, and Bruce were already in the system, Griffey is old, Dunn isn't a 'pitching-and-defense' guy (which is the direction the organization is headed), and Bruce hasn't proven anything at the ML level. That's also not to mention the argument that drafting for best player available is a better strategy than drafting for position. Baseball America ranked Stubbs as the second-best prospect in the draft. Several mock drafts had Stubbs going before the eight pick.
My citing Scherzer wasn't just about noting one we passed on but also a way of reminding people what real progress in the minor leagues looks like. None of K's 2006 class has succeeded beyond very conservative age-appropriate levels. The verdict on the whole class is still out. Dorn is the one possible exception, though at 23 the FSL is where he should be. Let's put it this way. The 2006 class looks a little less exciting nearly every single day.
The Reds are not promoting players (Watson excluded) who seemed to deserve the promotion. There is no reason that Chris Valaika should be in Dayton, and to be honest, he probably should have started in Sarasota. However the Reds had some moronic idea to 'keep them together'. Well guys, I hate to break it to you, but they are going to have to be broken up somewhere along the lines, why hinder the development of a player or two in order to keep them playing with Logan Parker (no disrespect to him, but he is not really in the same ballpark as say Valaika or Dorn in terms of needing a promotion)?
I don't think its so much of the players performing at the levels they are as it is the Reds not placing them at the correct levels.
I'm in complete agreement that there should be more aggressive promotion. But nothing I said is changed by your post. The three prospects you cite are all O'Brien's people. No one from the 2006 draft has performed at anything but age-appropriate levels. Watson, Dorn, and maybe Valaika seem interesting. We really don't know anything significant yet about K's 2006 draft. One question I think reasonable to ask at this point, given the slowness of moving these guys along and K's general horrible record of major league talent evaluation, is whether he's hiding them. Are the Low-A guys being kept there because they aren't really the prospects he'd like them to be seen as?
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.