thumbs still bad?

[princeton]

right away, the Reds need to look hard at the process by which the number one pick has been determined over the past couple of years.

also, this focus on big pitchers is pretty cool, and may pay big dividends in the future. but it's also liable to get a GM fired quickly. Bigger pitchers often take a lot longer to find their mechanics.

I figure that Jocketty is our last capable GM for a while because who else would want this job? So you need to feed him some stuff that will ripen at a quicker rate.

I don't mind drafting size after the first few rounds, but let's be more open early.

[TRF]

Stubbs May has been fine except he has been incredibly unlucky. He has a strong line drive rate in May (19%) and a very low BABIP of .220. Normalize that to just .310 (which is what his line drive rate would suggest) and his May looks a bit different. Strikeout rate is still too high this month, but his walk rate is fine, his line drive rate is fine.... keep doing what he is doing and his numbers will normalize.

A buck forty eight ain't JUST bad luck. I'll buy that luck is part of it, if you'll buy pitchers have made an adjustment and he hasn't yet.

[dougdirt]

A buck forty eight ain't JUST bad luck. I'll buy that luck is part of it, if you'll buy pitchers have made an adjustment and he hasn't yet.

He is hitting .159 in May. Part of it is bad luck, part of it is the strikeout rate. Still, if his BABIP were close to normal his OPS would likely be at least 150 or so points higher than it is for the month.

[TRF]

He is hitting .159 in May. Part of it is bad luck, part of it is the strikeout rate. Still, if his BABIP were close to normal his OPS would likely be at least 150 or so points higher than it is for the month.

I was using the numbers from minorleaguesplits.com. perhaps they aren't current.

Dammit, everytime I think I'm done posting about Stubbs, I get pulled back in.

[podgejeff_]

1. At the time of the pick, the Reds were awash in OF talent at the major league level. Stubbs bat is far from serviceable at this point in his career. May stats: .148BA .212OBP .262SLG .474OPS. That ain't serviceable
2. Stubbs was not the best player available, a pitcher was. It just so happens that it also filled a need. Swing and a miss on the Stubbs pick. Sorry, but at this point it just cannot be defended.

The first point I was making is that half of the draft (if not moreso) is based on potential, that was Stubbs. Gold Glove quality glove, bat that could be feared if it came along. And yes, at the time of the pick we were awash in OF talent. Look where we are now. Draft talent, not need.

And yes, in hindsight Lincecum looks to be the better player. At the time of the draft, Stubbs was the college pick that should have been close to contributing at the major league level. Lincecum, while talented, had mechanics that looked dangerous. The pick becomes obvious when it's made by an organization burned many times by pitcher injuries. Don't get me wrong, at this point I'd rather have Lincecum as well. Doesn't mean that the justification behind the Stubbs pick wasn't somewhat understandable.

[M2]

And yes, in hindsight Lincecum looks to be the better player. At the time of the draft, Stubbs was the college pick that should have been close to contributing at the major league level. Lincecum, while talented, had mechanics that looked dangerous. The pick becomes obvious when it's made by an organization burned many times by pitcher injuries. Don't get me wrong, at this point I'd rather have Lincecum as well. Doesn't mean that the justification behind the Stubbs pick wasn't somewhat understandable.

You're relatively new around here, but at the time of the 2006 draft there was a sizable contingent on this board who were aghast that the Reds passed on Lincecum for Stubbs. Stubbs' offensive issues were known and Lincecum oozed stuff. Higher ceiling, closer to the majors, more complete package? A large number of us would have answered Lincecum in June 2006.

[cincyinco]

Absolutely lincecum was closer to the majors. It want even really close.

[Kc61]

You have to look at drafting position and strength of draft. If the Reds have a mid-first round pick, like Mesoraco was, I give the team flexibility to gamble a little. At the fifteenth pick, probably there's some potential flaw in all the prospects, so you have to let the team make its best judgment.

When the team has a top 10 pick I feel differently. The annoying thing about the Gruler pick was that it was number 3. The highest pick the Reds have had in many years. That's not a pick to gamble with, it's a pick to use on quality.

I believe Bailey and Bruce were both number 7 or 8 selections. I think they were good ones. I don't recall what number Stubbs was, but it was pretty high. I'm disappointed in his bat but, on the other hand, we've all seen how tough it is to find a top defender in centerfield who is the complete package.

Which leads us to 2008. Seventh pick. The Reds need to go for top quality. I don't care about position one bit.

[dougdirt]

Bruce was #12 overall. Stubbs was #8.

[lollipopcurve]

I believe Bailey and Bruce were both number 7 or 8 selections.

Bailey #7, Bruce #12.

[Highlifeman21]

Mesoraco will get a lot more leniency than Stubbs ever did b/c of his age.

In a couple of years, that's when the fangs come out.

As he should.

Mesoraco didn't play 3 years of Big XII ball for Texas, and then stink up the joint to date in his minor league career.

Let's see how Mesoraco does after 3 years of minor league ball, then the fangs can come out, if warranted.

Stubbs has warranted fangs.

[Highlifeman21]

2007 Devin Mesoraco
2006 Drew Stubbs
2005 Jay Bruce.
2004 Homer Bailey.
2003 Ryan Wagner.
2002 Chris Gruler.
2001 Jeremy Sowers (DNS)
2000 David Espinosa
1999 Ty Howington
1998 Austin Kearns
1997 Brandon Larson

When you're batting 3 for 11 since 1997 with 1st Round Draft Picks, it's no wonder the current state of the Reds.

Yikes.

I really hope Jocketty rights the 1st Round Draft pick ship this year.

[Highlifeman21]

1. We DEFINITELY need a CF with excellent defense and a serviceable bat in the system. Unless you're a fan of Patterson. The needs of the season of the draft aren't necessarily going to be the same needs two or three years later, when that talent is ready for the primetime. Which leads to point number 2...

2. You don't draft based on need, you draft the best pick available.

This is a concept foreign to the Reds in recent drafts.

2006, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000.

MUCH better guys left on the board when the Reds wasted picks in those respective years.

And Gruler "projecting higher" than Kazmir makes me laugh out loud to this day. People that actually believe that are in deep denial.

[RedlegJake]

And Gruler "projecting higher" than Kazmir makes me laugh out loud to this day. People that actually believe that are in deep denial.

I don't know about that. Kazmir was rated higher but not by that much. Gruler was definitely #2 but had a "major league" body. Kazmir was small and the Reds scouting had a bias against smallish pitchers for years. Hopefully our own Cueto and Volquez, and the success of Lincecum has convinced them that was wrong. That's just my opinion, of course, not a sign of deep denial - or worthy, I might add of that sort of remark.

[Highlifeman21]

I don't know about that. Kazmir was rated higher but not by that much. Gruler was definitely #2 but had a "major league" body. Kazmir was small and the Reds scouting had a bias against smallish pitchers for years. Hopefully our own Cueto and Volquez, and the success of Lincecum has convinced them that was wrong. That's just my opinion, of course, not a sign of deep denial - or worthy, I might add of that sort of remark.

Kazmir being left-handed, and being the consensus best arm out there should have put him head and shoulders above Gruler, regardless of Gruler having the precursor to the Jeff Conine "young body", which is a "major league body".

Gruler broke down quickly. So much for the "major league body" theory.