I went through a similar exercise about a month ago, redsmetz:
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...ed#post1432933
M2 makes a very good point as well. The Braves and A's both take this logic in different directions, both successfully.
The Braves figure that if anybody is going to develop a player well, it's them. Thus they focus more on identifying top level high school talent and then develop it in house. They don't have to spend time breaking old habits and don't have to worry about any usage abuse to which the player might have been subjected. This also has the affect of getting the player to the major leagues at a younger age.
The A's figure that if it is going to take a player 5-6 years to develop and that most prospects fail to develop in to major leaguers due either to a variety of reasons including insufficient talent and injuries, that they should minimize their risk by focusing on players closer to their developmental peak or who have overwhelming potential to offset said risk.
Both approaches are very logical and both organizations have developed their scouting and player development talent to those ends.
So, what is the Reds organizational philosophy on player development? What skills, talents, abilities do we value most highly? What are our strengths and weaknesses in developing those skills, talents, and abilities?
Given those things, how do we go about addressing the fact that we have failed to develop pitching prospects? The A's tried to address the injury question by focusing on players who had already progressed through the injury nexus of the early 20's. The Braves focused on the developmental issue by drafting young players with good "makeup" who would take coaching well.
I wish I could something positive about what we do and why we do it that way.