Turn Off Ads?
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 60

Thread: Jim Callis Espn Chat

  1. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    princeton, nj
    Posts
    9,482

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    I just don't believe the Reds have a way in which they measure things to find out the optimum value of their prospects.
    maybe. We'll have to see. Probably the best support of your statement is the report that we got that the Reds are highly enamored of Johnny Cueto-- to the point that it was a sticking point over trading for Haren. that's troubling. Cueto will need to become a significant player to justify the support

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #32
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,944

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Quote Originally Posted by princeton View Post
    maybe. We'll have to see. Probably the best support of your statement is the report that we got that the Reds are highly enamored of Johnny Cueto-- to the point that it was a sticking point over trading for Haren. that's troubling. Cueto will need to become a significant player to justify the support
    Nowhere has it said that he was the sticking point. It said that the Reds chose to keep a package including Cueto. That could mean he was the main guy or that he was a secondary guy. We don't know.

  4. #33
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    19,139

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Quote Originally Posted by princeton View Post
    maybe. We'll have to see. Probably the best support of your statement is the report that we got that the Reds are highly enamored of Johnny Cueto-- to the point that it was a sticking point over trading for Haren. that's troubling. Cueto will need to become a significant player to justify the support
    I don't think we can treat rumors as fact. Also, even if Cueto was a sticking point in a Haren negotiation, we have no idea what the remaining parameters were of such a hypothetical deal. Given the haul that Beane got for Haren, the Reds shouldn't have topped Arizona's offer.
    Last edited by jojo; 01-06-2008 at 04:41 PM.
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  5. #34
    Member Cedric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Monroe
    Posts
    6,415

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Quote Originally Posted by princeton View Post
    Good. BA rankings help GMs to explain their trades to the sportswriters and ultimately to the fanbase.

    congratulations to the Reds. Now, trade a lot of these guys away and get better.
    If Wayne=Terry Ryan than I think we have a mixed bag. Minnesota turned around their franchise by playing youngsters and also knowing when to get rid of them (AJ). Not really anything novel, hopefully Krivsky has that same knack.

    Hopefully Wayne gets rid of the only flaw I saw with Terry Ryan. Refusing to take risks with position players. And that Juan Castro thing.
    This is the time. The real Reds organization is back.

  6. #35
    BobC, get a legit F.O.! Mario-Rijo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Springfield, Ohio
    Posts
    9,054

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Quote Originally Posted by Cedric View Post
    If Wayne=Terry Ryan than I think we have a mixed bag. Minnesota turned around their franchise by playing youngsters and also knowing when to get rid of them (AJ). Not really anything novel, hopefully Krivsky has that same knack.

    Hopefully Wayne gets rid of the only flaw I saw with Terry Ryan. Refusing to take risks with position players. And that Juan Castro thing.
    What kind of risks?
    "You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one."

    --Woody Hayes

  7. #36
    Member Cedric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Monroe
    Posts
    6,415

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo View Post
    What kind of risks?
    I love Terry Ryan so I'm not bashing him overall. Look at his track record though and he has at times been guilty of either holding onto field prospects too long, or not playing them soon enough. He was extra cautious with field prospects later in his career and I think that hampered the Twins at times.
    This is the time. The real Reds organization is back.

  8. #37
    BobC, get a legit F.O.! Mario-Rijo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Springfield, Ohio
    Posts
    9,054

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Quote Originally Posted by Cedric View Post
    I love Terry Ryan so I'm not bashing him overall. Look at his track record though and he has at times been guilty of either holding onto field prospects too long, or not playing them soon enough. He was extra cautious with field prospects later in his career and I think that hampered the Twins at times.
    It's certainly something to be keeping on eye on. If I had to lean one way or another right now (I really don't but...), I'd say he does that.
    "You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one."

    --Woody Hayes

  9. #38
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,455

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    2000-2001 wasn't quite where its at right now in terms of top end talent and being at AAA or higher like all of the guys are right now.
    That's highly revisionist. The Reds were rated #3 heading into 2001 and will be rated #3 heading into 2008. While they may not be exactly the same, the 2008 group projects no stronger than the 2001 did on paper.

    Insisting that this crop of youngsters is naturally better is just a neat way of not learning from recent history. What the Reds need to do is identify the absolute keepers and the kids who should be traded while they've got top markets. Imagine what might have happened if the JimBo regime had moved Gookie Dawkins instead of Mike Cameron. Imagine what Austin Kearns and Ty Howington might have fetched. That could have gone a long from transforming the Reds from also rans to a winning ballclub.

    The Reds would be well advised to try to know now what will be known by all later. Being ranked #3 doesn't mean the future is assured, it means the club has a hand of cards to play.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  10. #39
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,944

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    That's highly revisionist. The Reds were rated #3 heading into 2001 and will be rated #3 heading into 2008. While they may not be exactly the same, the 2008 group projects no stronger than the 2001 did on paper.

    Insisting that this crop of youngsters is naturally better is just a neat way of not learning from recent history. What the Reds need to do is identify the absolute keepers and the kids who should be traded while they've got top markets. Imagine what might have happened if the JimBo regime had moved Gookie Dawkins instead of Mike Cameron. Imagine what Austin Kearns and Ty Howington might have fetched. That could have gone a long from transforming the Reds from also rans to a winning ballclub.

    The Reds would be well advised to try to know now what will be known by all later. Being ranked #3 doesn't mean the future is assured, it means the club has a hand of cards to play.
    Its not being revisionist at all. Right now the Reds have 4 top end prospects, 3 of which have had a lot of success in AAA and then Johnny Cueto who has very limited success in AAA.

    Gookie Dawkins was a slap hitting SS with a 100 at bat stretch where he hit well. Heck, only 1 season did the guy OPS over .700 before he turned 25. Drew Henson was coming off a .750 OPS season at AA. Kearns was coming off a great season in 2000, but it was in Low A and then the next year as a 21 year old he had a .780 OPS in AA. Solid, but not mind blowing. Adam Dunn was coming off a solid season in 2000 in Dayton, but again, it was a solid season in low A. Ed Yarnall was a 24 year old pitcher in AAA with bad walk rates and not the best strikeout rates. Rob Bell was coming off a solid AA season. Jackson Melian was coming off a sub .700 OPS in 2000, albeit in AA at 20. Dane Sardinha hadn't played a game yet when he was ranked and well, he never had a season OPS over .688 in the minors. Same goes for David Espinosa.

    Those were the guys rated as Top Prospects after 2000 and 2001. I don't think its revisionist at all, the guy we have now have shown very strong success in AA and in AAA. Back then there was absolutely none of that going on.

  11. #40
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,455

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Its not being revisionist at all. Right now the Reds have 4 top end prospects, 3 of which have had a lot of success in AAA and then Johnny Cueto who has very limited success in AAA.
    I'll get to the preposterosity of "a lot" later, but that's not the part you're being revisionist about.

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Gookie Dawkins was a slap hitting SS with a 100 at bat stretch where he hit well. Heck, only 1 season did the guy OPS over .700 before he turned 25.
    Gookie Dawkins was rated the #21 prospect in the minors in 2000 and he played on the Olympic winning team that season. All reports during the Jr. negotiations were that the Mariners were willing to make him the principal return in the deal. The Reds refused to discuss Dawkins and instead wound up trading Cameron. The Reds haven't had a middle IF that highly regarded since Larkin/Stillwell in the mid-80s. Either know some history or do some homework.

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Drew Henson was coming off a .750 OPS season at AA. Kearns was coming off a great season in 2000, but it was in Low A and then the next year as a 21 year old he had a .780 OPS in AA. Solid, but not mind blowing. Adam Dunn was coming off a solid season in 2000 in Dayton, but again, it was a solid season in low A. Ed Yarnall was a 24 year old pitcher in AAA with bad walk rates and not the best strikeout rates. Rob Bell was coming off a solid AA season. Jackson Melian was coming off a sub .700 OPS in 2000, albeit in AA at 20. Dane Sardinha hadn't played a game yet when he was ranked and well, he never had a season OPS over .688 in the minors. Same goes for David Espinosa.
    All you've done there is delve into how incredibly deep the Reds system was deemed to be at the time. You've so far listed nine kids who ranked as top 100 prospects in the 2000-2001 time period, something the current batch can't match.

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Those were the guys rated as Top Prospects after 2000 and 2001. I don't think its revisionist at all, the guy we have now have shown very strong success in AA and in AAA. Back then there was absolutely none of that going on.
    That's a nice artificial line you've drawn, but it's only being done in service of keeping you from considering something you don't want to consider (which of the top kids isn't a keeper). Only Votto and Maloney can claim full seasons of success in the upper minors at the moment and, all respect to those two, no one in their right mind would tell you they're better prospects than Dunn and Kearns were back in 2001. And once again, you need to look up the word "revisionist." You're panning kids universally deemed as bright prospects seven years ago. Since you tend toward enthusiasm when it comes to prospects (and I don't mean that as a criticism), I find it impossible to believe you wouldn't have been highly enthusiastic about the 2001 class had you been around at the time. For instance, a guy who still holds a candle for the now departed Miguel Perez surely wouldn't have been put off by Gookie Dawkins' 2000 season.

    My suggestion is that rather than turning a critical eye toward history in an attempt to explain away why it happened, learn from history and turn that same critical eye toward the present in an effort to piece through what might be a better approach this time around.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  12. #41
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,944

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    M2, I stand firm on what I wrote. In 2000/2001 the Reds had a very deep system based on upside but very little true production anywhere other than A ball. Kearns and Dunn were very good prospects but were still in A ball (as far as when these system rankings came out). The rest of the group was banking off of their upside (see a Drew Stubbs type from this current group of prospects) and a little production that wasn't overly impressive. Yeah, I still like Drew Stubbs a lot, but in no way would I ever not trade him. For that matter I would trade Bailey, Cueto or Votto too, in the right situations. I think the two situations as far as what is in the systems is completely different though.

  13. #42
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,455

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    M2, I stand firm on what I wrote. In 2000/2001 the Reds had a very deep system based on upside but very little true production anywhere other than A ball.
    And I stand by what I said, in 2000/2001 you'd have had a spoon in each hand gobbling up those prospects.

    Anyway, if you're willing to consider moving most of the kids on the farm, it sounds like you're more or less in line with what princeton's urging. I'm sure he'd make a few deals you wouldn't, but that's a small difference in comparison to a complete philosophical rift.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  14. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    4,250

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Regardless of how this group of prospects compares to the 2000 group, there is one thing we know for certain ... most of them will never come close to reaching their potential. Chances are that a one or two will reach their ceiling, an additional two or three will become useful major leaguers, and the rest will replacement level chattel or complete washouts.

    The trick is identifying the one or two studs and having to the cahones to move the rest if/when the right deal comes along. Unfortunately, the Reds chose to hold onto the entire 2000 crop only to watch the majority of them crash and burn and lose all of their trade value. I would like to see them avoid that mistake this time around.
    Last edited by Steve4192; 01-08-2008 at 02:49 PM.

  15. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    princeton, nj
    Posts
    9,482

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve4192 View Post
    The trick is identifying the one or two studs and having to the cahones to move the rest if/when the right deal comes along.
    I'm happy to move the studs, too, if it puts us in a position to contend for 2-3 years. I think that one tends to overrate one's prospects. Most people are optimists.

  16. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    4,250

    Re: Jim Callis Espn Chat

    Quote Originally Posted by princeton View Post
    I'm happy to move the studs, too, if it puts us in a position to contend for 2-3 years. I think that one tends to overrate one's prospects. Most people are optimists.
    By studs I was referring to the guys who will end up being major league studs. Of course, the possibility exists that none of them will be studs or that you screw the pooch and lump a future star into the washout category and trade him away. My point is, that you just can't sit on your hands and let things play out on their own, because history has shown that the vast majority of prospects hit their peak value long before they ever step on a major league diamond.

    Sure, you run the risk of trading away the wrong guys, but at some point you have to trust your scouting & development department enough to make a decision. Otherwise, you end up stuck in analysis paralysis and stand by idly as your valuable prospects turned into worthless suspects.


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