Turn Off Ads?
Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 216

Thread: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

  1. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Shelburne Falls, MA
    Posts
    12,216

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    Without a 2nd rd pick this year, the importance of not "missing" on our first rounder is even more magnified. As it stands now, after our #7 pick, we don't pick again until #80.
    I agree -- it's an especially important 1st rounder. I'm hoping they keep some of that 2nd round $$$ in the budget and sign somebody who falls for signability reasons. Probably wishful thinking... that dough could go into the international market, too.


  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    princeton, nj
    Posts
    9,481

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    Quote Originally Posted by lollipopcurve View Post
    I agree -- it's an especially important 1st rounder. I'm hoping they keep some of that 2nd round $$$ in the budget and sign somebody who falls for signability reasons. Probably wishful thinking... that dough could go into the international market, too.
    Francisco Cordero is spending the money in markets of many nations

  4. #33
    Member RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    19,441

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    Quote Originally Posted by edabbs44 View Post
    • They don't want to pony up the prospects for Bedard or Haren
    • Gil Meche got $55 million over 5 years last offseason
    • A situational LHP was just signed by the Reds to compete for a spot in the rotation this year
    • Behind Cueto and Bailey in the minors, there isn't really much in the way of starting pitching to be excited about

    Without targeting it towards the top of the draft, I don't have a clue where Cincy's pitching will be coming from in the next 5 years.
    Edabbs, I absolutely share your concern. I agree with the basic sentiment that the Reds will never be able to win without competent starting pitching and that given the realities of the market, the Reds will not be able to build a capable starting staff by acquiring established pitchers through trades and FA.

    However, I'm not sure I agree that with the statement "without targeting it towards the top of the draft..." How do you define the top. If you mean with the first 10 rounds, or even first 5 rounds, I'd agree wholeheartedly. The vast majority of great starting pitchers who were drafted, were drafted in the top 10 rounds. However, I think insisting that we take one with the first round pick, if that's what you meant, is a bit much.

    Harang was a 6th round pick. Arroyo was a 3rd round pick, as was Matt Maloney. Cueto was an international signee, as was Volquez. For every Justin Verlander or Josh Beckett (both #2 overall), there's a Johan Santana (International) or Brandon Webb (8th Round).

    The bigger problem the Reds have had, in my opinion, is development of starting pitchers. Barring a significant change in the development staff and techniques (which I would strongly advocate), it won't matter how many pitchers we draft. We will continue to struggle to produce solid starters. However, we have been able to produce bats, and Wayne has shown a good ability to identify them.

    I suggest that until and unless the development structure changes, we play to our strengths. Keep trading Jose Guillen and Wily Mo Pena for Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo. Let other teams get pitchers to the brink of success. Let them deal with the increased risk of career-ending injury (relative to position players). Then go and trade Todd Frazier and Drew Stubbs for Ian Snell. Go get an undervalued talent like Aaron Heilman. You get the idea. At this point, taking the best available pitcher, as a rule, is forcing a square peg in to a round hole. I'm not necessarily saying we should pass up a clearly better pitcher for a hitter, but that given the choice between two relative equals, I'd take the hitter for the Reds organization as of today.
    Last edited by RedsManRick; 01-24-2008 at 12:49 PM.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  5. #34
    Sprinkles are for winners dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    49,393

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    Edabbs, you bring up Tim Lincecum over Drew Stubbs.... but lets just say that things played out a little differently. Luke Hochevar went #1 overall, but the next 2 college pitchers taken were Greg Reynolds (shoulder surgery last August, though not said to be very serious.... still a shoulder surgery that scares me) and Brad Lincoln (TJ Surgery). What if Lincecum were taken in one of their spots and we ended up with Reynolds or Lincoln rather than Stubbs? I think everyone knows they missed the boat on Lincecum and he probably should have gone #1 or #2 overall that year, but just because he was available to take at our pick doesn't mean that we should always take that 'best college pitcher available' because that strategy doesn't always work out. I am all for taking that guy if he is the best talent available, but regardless of how the pitching market is these days, spending every pick on pitching isn't a wise strategy.

  6. #35
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,358

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    Edabbs, I absolutely share your concern. I agree with the basic sentiment that the Reds will never be able to win without competent starting pitching and that given the realities of the market, the Reds will not be able to build a capable starting staff by acquiring established pitchers through trades and FA.

    However, I'm not sure I agree that with the statement "without targeting it towards the top of the draft..." How do you define the top. If you mean with the first 10 rounds, or even first 5 rounds, I'd agree wholeheartedly. The vast majority of great starting pitchers who were drafted, were drafted in the top 10 rounds. However, I think insisting that we take one with the first round pick, if that's what you meant, is a bit much.

    Harang was a 6th round pick. Arroyo was a 3rd round pick, as was Matt Maloney. Cueto was an international signee, as was Volquez. For every Justin Verlander or Josh Beckett (both #2 overall), there's a Johan Santana (International) or Brandon Webb (8th Round).

    The bigger problem the Reds have had, in my opinion, is development of starting pitchers. Barring a significant change in the development staff and techniques (which I would strongly advocate), it won't matter how many pitchers we draft. We will continue to struggle to produce solid starters. However, we have been able to produce bats, and Wayne has shown a good ability to identify them.

    I suggest that until and unless the development structure changes, we play to our strengths. Keep trading Jose Guillen and Wily Mo Pena for Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo. Let other teams get pitchers to the brink of success. Let them deal with the increased risk of career-ending injury (relative to position players). Then go and trade Todd Frazier and Drew Stubbs for Ian Snell. Go get an undervalued talent like Aaron Heilman. You get the idea. At this point, taking the best available pitcher, as a rule, is forcing a square peg in to a round hole. I'm not necessarily saying we should pass up a clearly better pitcher for a hitter, but that given the choice between two relative equals, I'd take the hitter for the Reds organization as of today.
    I'm with you on the international mkt thing.

    Now, when I say "towards the top of the draft", I am meaning getting top pitchers in the draft. If that means drafting the best pitcher on the board in the 1st, go ahead. If that means grabbing a pitcher who drops because of concerns around contract demands, fine.

    I'm not advocating "forcing a square peg into a round hole." What I am advocating is targeting top pitching. To be completely honest, I think the last 2 first round picks were forcing certain shaped pegs into misshapen holes. WK gets all giddy when it comes to defense up the middle? Stubbs and Mesoraco, coming right up.

    Harang was a 6th round pick. Arroyo was a 3rd round pick, as was Matt Maloney. Cueto was an international signee, as was Volquez. For every Justin Verlander or Josh Beckett (both #2 overall), there's a Johan Santana (International) or Brandon Webb (8th Round).
    I'm not sure how fair this is. Again, much room for cherry picking here. I know that top 10 picks are far from locks, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that they have a better chance to work out than 8th rounders, on average.

    Keep trading Jose Guillen and Wily Mo Pena for Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo. Let other teams get pitchers to the brink of success. Let them deal with the increased risk of career-ending injury (relative to position players). Then go and trade Todd Frazier and Drew Stubbs for Ian Snell. Go get an undervalued talent like Aaron Heilman. You get the idea.
    I do get the idea and I think we are on the same page. I just think that you are making the "just keep trading Jose Guillen for Harang" out to be a little more difficult than it really is. Times are different now. People are holding on to young pitching like grim death. Those trades don't take place as often. If it were that easy, I'd be with you 100%.

    Now...the other part of strategy is to draft the pitching and, if possible, turn it into major league quality players. Look at the Florida/Detroit trade. Young arms are the most desired commodity on the street.

    I did this analysis last winter and though I didn't update it this year, it probably holds true.

    http://www.redszone.com/forums/showp...87&postcount=1

  7. #36
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,358

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Edabbs, you bring up Tim Lincecum over Drew Stubbs.... but lets just say that things played out a little differently. Luke Hochevar went #1 overall, but the next 2 college pitchers taken were Greg Reynolds (shoulder surgery last August, though not said to be very serious.... still a shoulder surgery that scares me) and Brad Lincoln (TJ Surgery). What if Lincecum were taken in one of their spots and we ended up with Reynolds or Lincoln rather than Stubbs? I think everyone knows they missed the boat on Lincecum and he probably should have gone #1 or #2 overall that year, but just because he was available to take at our pick doesn't mean that we should always take that 'best college pitcher available' because that strategy doesn't always work out. I am all for taking that guy if he is the best talent available, but regardless of how the pitching market is these days, spending every pick on pitching isn't a wise strategy.
    OK...how about if Cincy took Chris Nelson over Homer Bailey?

    Look, I didn't try and get a Stubbs debate going. Me bringing up Stubbs was purely from a cherry-picking standpoint. Either side of the argument can bring up 50 cases of where taking a pitcher over a hitter (and vice versa) worked out.

    I don't want to spend every pick on pitching. I want to spend more of the premium ones. I want to draft guys who fall like Arrieta and Porcello. I don't want to stay away from drafting top pitching because they may have surgery at some point in their career. Hitters aren't guaranteed success either.

  8. #37
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,358

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Austin Kearns View Post
    Taking Lincecum would have been a case of best player available, not just 'best pitcher available. It's not like Stubbs was the superior prospect between the two.
    Then what theory were they subscribing to in that draft? Best athlete available?



    Quote Originally Posted by Austin Kearns View Post
    I think this is where the confusion comes from. I would think using a strict 'best pitcher available' model that the theory would be to consider overdrafting simply because the player is a pitcher.

    I'd agree though, that all things equal (talent, how far away), you take the pitcher.
    Yep...it's only logical if the #1 hitter and #7 pitcher are on the board when Cincy picks this year that, odds are, you should take the hitter. But I just think the Reds have been a little gunshy about taking pitchers the last two years. If there's a stud there, take him.

  9. #38
    Sprinkles are for winners dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    49,393

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    Quote Originally Posted by edabbs44 View Post
    OK...how about if Cincy took Chris Nelson over Homer Bailey?

    Look, I didn't try and get a Stubbs debate going. Me bringing up Stubbs was purely from a cherry-picking standpoint. Either side of the argument can bring up 50 cases of where taking a pitcher over a hitter (and vice versa) worked out.

    I don't want to spend every pick on pitching. I want to spend more of the premium ones. I want to draft guys who fall like Arrieta and Porcello. I don't want to stay away from drafting top pitching because they may have surgery at some point in their career. Hitters aren't guaranteed success either.
    You made my point for me with the Nelson thing. Take the best player available. Not the best pitcher, not the best hitter, not the best up the middle guy.... the best talent out there that you can sign (handing a MLB contract and 7 million dollars to a high school pitcher is a huge gamble and there is no question as to why the #2 or #3 talent in the draft fell to #27 with demands like that from Porcello). I have no problem with drafting pitching, at all. However they do have a much less likely chance of being a major leaguer than a position player. Its been that way throughout history and will continue to be that way simply because of injuries and how difficult it actually is to be a good pitcher.

    If two players, one hitter and one pitcher both rate out the same, then by all means I want the pitcher 100 times out of 100. If we have a first baseman who rates out just a tick ahead of the pitcher, I want the first baseman every time. At the end of the day, I just want the guys being paid to judge talent by the Reds to be able to say 'we took the highest rated guy on our board that we were able to sign (and actually sign them for slot money, which means no overdrafting a guy so he will take 75% of slot money) at every pick this year'. Thats all I want.

  10. #39
    Member RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    19,441

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    I think the general point I'm making is that we stink at developing pitching and are good at developing hitting. Let's keep developing hitting and then trade it (Bruce for Bedard anybody?) rather than banging our heads against the wall with the next Ty Howington and Chris Gruler. Certainly not meant as an absolutist position, but I think it can be part of a broader strategy.

    Who knows, 3 or 4 years from now, teams could be hoarding power hitting corner OF after realizing that the deal they passed up in the interests of keeping that pitcher could have really worked out in their favor. If there's anything I've learned about baseball markets, it's that the market adjusts slowly and you can get a lot of value from being out ahead of the curve.

    Here's some random Warren Buffet quotes for fun that may or may not have any bearing on this conversation:

    - "Investors making purchases in an overheated market need to recognize that it may often take an extended period for the value of even an outstanding company to catch up with the price they paid."
    - "It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price."
    - "The future is never clear, and you pay a very high price in the stock market for a cheery consensus. Uncertainty is the friend of the buyer of long-term values."
    - "Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing."
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  11. #40
    Member RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    19,441

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    If two players, one hitter and one pitcher both rate out the same, then by all means I want the pitcher 100 times out of 100. If we have a first baseman who rates out just a tick ahead of the pitcher, I want the first baseman every time. At the end of the day, I just want the guys being paid to judge talent by the Reds to be able to say 'we took the highest rated guy on our board that we were able to sign (and actually sign them for slot money, which means no overdrafting a guy so he will take 75% of slot money) at every pick this year'. Thats all I want.
    Three questions Doug.

    1.) Do you think the Reds evaluate talent equally well across skill sets and positions?
    2.) Do you think the Reds develop talent equally well across skill sets and positions?
    3.) Do you think the answers to #1 and #2 should have any bearing on who gets drafted?
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  12. #41
    Member Highlifeman21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Bristol, just around the corner from ESPN
    Posts
    8,694

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    I just want the best player available. I don't care if its a pitcher, catcher, first baseman, outfielder.... whatever. Just take the best baseball talent available according to your scouts.
    We agree on something concerning prospects! (sorta)

    Take the best guy available, regardless of the position, depending on the strength of the draft. If it's a weak draft, take the best guy available regardless of position. If it's a strong draft, then you have a better chance to draft to fill a need.

    Unfortunately, I honestly think the Reds did the exact opposite of that the last 2 years. I think they tried to draft to fill a need rather than take the best available guy when they were on the clock.

  13. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    princeton, nj
    Posts
    9,481

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    Quote Originally Posted by edabbs44 View Post
    I just think that you are making the "just keep trading Jose Guillen for Harang" out to be a little more difficult than it really is. Times are different now. People are holding on to young pitching like grim death. Those trades don't take place as often.
    I've been hearing this myth for 25 years

    you can still get young pitching. Heck, we'd trade you young pitching even though we need pitching.

    the tough part is figuring out the right young pitcher. And it always will be.

  14. #43
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,358

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    You made my point for me with the Nelson thing. Take the best player available. Not the best pitcher, not the best hitter, not the best up the middle guy.... the best talent out there that you can sign (handing a MLB contract and 7 million dollars to a high school pitcher is a huge gamble and there is no question as to why the #2 or #3 talent in the draft fell to #27 with demands like that from Porcello). I have no problem with drafting pitching, at all. However they do have a much less likely chance of being a major leaguer than a position player. Its been that way throughout history and will continue to be that way simply because of injuries and how difficult it actually is to be a good pitcher.

    If two players, one hitter and one pitcher both rate out the same, then by all means I want the pitcher 100 times out of 100. If we have a first baseman who rates out just a tick ahead of the pitcher, I want the first baseman every time. At the end of the day, I just want the guys being paid to judge talent by the Reds to be able to say 'we took the highest rated guy on our board that we were able to sign (and actually sign them for slot money, which means no overdrafting a guy so he will take 75% of slot money) at every pick this year'. Thats all I want.
    Nelson was ranked higher than Homer.

  15. #44
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    56,997

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    The shouldn't even bother with the draft, the draft ain't getting them to the World Series this year so they should save the money and do something else with it.
    \\

  16. #45
    Probably not Patrick Bateman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    8,825

    Re: The Reds #1 pick -- what say you?

    Quote Originally Posted by edabbs44 View Post
    Then what theory were they subscribing to in that draft? Best athlete available?

    I don't know. But Lincecum was the obvious pick. Whatever the Reds were thinking on that one was messed up. Hell, 99% of Redszone got that one right, and it wasn't just because he was a pitcher. It's because he was the obvious best player available.


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 | Gallen5862 | Plus Plus | Powel Crosley | RedlegJake | The Operator