Turn Off Ads?
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 195

Thread: thumbs still bad?

  1. #31
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,134

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Will M View Post
    sorry. you are the one who is off base here.

    as i said there are people who are picking on this kid due to the fact that he is off to a slow start to his big league career. they point out someone who we could have drafted instead. wow, that is hard. considering guys like Pujols and Piazza were 40th round draft picks then every GM in baseball is a dolt.
    these are the same guys who focus on the negative aspects of the Reds all the time. if we were 40-1 they would find fault. what exactly is the point?
    Really? I'm off base? Did I suggest that you're somehow not a true "fan" because of your take on Mesoraco? Actually you didn't post a take on Mesoraco. You posted a take on people who have a take on Mesoraco, and that's garbage.

    And now you've heaped more garbage onto the pile with this post. Apparently wishing that the team's top pick in the last draft show some quality on the field makes you congenitally negative.
    Last edited by M2; 05-19-2008 at 11:00 AM.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #32
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,134

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by *BaseClogger* View Post
    wasn't Porcello clearly a Top 10 talent, but wanted a big signing bonus? If he was a better talent than Mesoraco, but wasn't drafted because of the money issue, I think we have a reason to complain...
    I agree in that Porcello was clearly the best talent on the board when the Reds picked. All 30 teams would have agreed with that. Whether the Reds should have been scared off by the money he was asking is impossible to answer. My take was and is that with a supposed contract whiz in the GM job, the Reds should have rolled the dice on the tough sign with the big talent.

    Had they landed Porcello and Frazier with their first two picks, the Reds would be considered the current landslide winners of the 2007 draft.

    Though it should be noted that the point of bringing up what the alternate picks could have been is to learn from the experience. In 2006 the Reds passed up a top rated prospect who dropped in Lincecum and the next year they did the same thing with Porcello. So when do they learn that lesson?
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  4. #33
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,835

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    Though it should be noted that the point of bringing up what the alternate picks could have been is to learn from the experience. In 2006 the Reds passed up a top rated prospect who dropped in Lincecum and the next year they did the same thing with Porcello. So when do they learn that lesson?
    I'm not sure the same lesson applies to both. Lincecum fell, but not very far, and he wasn't asking for outrageous money. He signed for about what Stubbs did. In other words, it was a selection based on merit (as the Reds saw it), probably because they'd red-flagged Lincecum's mechanics, not because they didn't think they could afford him. To the extent time proves them more right or more wrong than it appears at the moment, that's a lesson in player evaluation.

    With Porcello, they didn't want to write a check that large, pure and simple. The lesson that needs to be learned there is the one BP researched earlier this year on whether it made sense to pay over slot for talent that's dropping due to signability concerns -- and concluded that it generally did.
    Not all who wander are lost

  5. #34
    Moderator RedlegJake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Kansas City, Mo
    Posts
    5,616

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    I agree in that Porcello was clearly the best talent on the board when the Reds picked. All 30 teams would have agreed with that. Whether the Reds should have been scared off by the money he was asking is impossible to answer. My take was and is that with a supposed contract whiz in the GM job, the Reds should have rolled the dice on the tough sign with the big talent.

    Had they landed Porcello and Frazier with their first two picks, the Reds would be considered the current landslide winners of the 2007 draft.

    Though it should be noted that the point of bringing up what the alternate picks could have been is to learn from the experience. In 2006 the Reds passed up a top rated prospect who dropped in Lincecum and the next year they did the same thing with Porcello. So when do they learn that lesson?
    Signability is a big beef with me. More than once the Reds have dodged great talents clearly better because of that. If you want to win then you don't pass clearly better players because of that - you figure out how to make it work. If two players are close then I can see leaning toward the easier to sign. My complaint with Mes isn't with him so much as the obvious drafting for a need - they went for a catcher because they were weak in the system. Drafting for a need is dumb in baseball where the player will be years away. As for Lincecum I still think the Reds shied away from him because of size and mechanics. They couldn't afford the fallout from another Howington/Gruler. Outside Bailey they haven't gone for a pitcher since (in the first round) and there have been some good ones available.

  6. #35
    Will post for food BuckeyeRedleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Dublin, OH
    Posts
    5,328

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedlegJake View Post
    Signability is a big beef with me. More than once the Reds have dodged great talents clearly better because of that. If you want to win then you don't pass clearly better players because of that - you figure out how to make it work. If two players are close then I can see leaning toward the easier to sign. My complaint with Mes isn't with him so much as the obvious drafting for a need - they went for a catcher because they were weak in the system. Drafting for a need is dumb in baseball where the player will be years away. As for Lincecum I still think the Reds shied away from him because of size and mechanics. They couldn't afford the fallout from another Howington/Gruler. Outside Bailey they haven't gone for a pitcher since (in the first round) and there have been some good ones available.
    Agree. If catcher is weak in your system and there is a college catcher available that is top 10 talent, I have no problem drafting for need. A HS kid may take 5-7 years to make it, if he does indeed make it and in that time you can fill the catching void through free agency and trades. By the time the kid makes it catching may no longer even be a need.

    Mesoraco was not an exciting pick. I wish him luck, but I think signability was AGAIN a factor with yet another Reds pick.

  7. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Shelburne Falls, MA
    Posts
    10,059

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    In 2006 the Reds passed up a top rated prospect who dropped in Lincecum and the next year they did the same thing with Porcello. So when do they learn that lesson?
    I think the Kazmir/Gruler situation, and the Jered Weaver/Bailey situation are better comps for Porcello in that the Reds avoided guys with high price tags/roster demands. The only year they were willing to dole out major league roster spots, they gave them to guys who turned out not to merit them. In other words, they've consistently botched when to spring for talent and when not to spring for talent at the top of the draft. While I don't get worked up over any individual misses -- they happen -- I would be very pleased if as an organization they put everybody into play -- from the big bonus babies to the HS catchers -- instead of disqualifying some very talented kids based on considerations beyond what they project those players to do on the field.

    This year, we're talking about guys like Hosmer and Alvarez, reportedly. Buckley has said the scouting department hasn't been given restrictions. I think that's a stock soundbyte any SD would deliver. I do think Hosmer will slide, and I think it's within the realm of possibility that Alvarez will, too, though quite unlikely.
    "Baseball is a very, very complex business. It's more of a people business than most businesses." - Bob Castellini

  8. #37
    Moderator RedlegJake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Kansas City, Mo
    Posts
    5,616

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    I'd do handstands if the Reds got either Alvarez or Hosmer. Not just for the player but it would show they were finally serious about drafting the best available.

  9. #38
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,134

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by IslandRed View Post
    I'm not sure the same lesson applies to both. Lincecum fell, but not very far, and he wasn't asking for outrageous money. He signed for about what Stubbs did. In other words, it was a selection based on merit (as the Reds saw it), probably because they'd red-flagged Lincecum's mechanics, not because they didn't think they could afford him. To the extent time proves them more right or more wrong than it appears at the moment, that's a lesson in player evaluation.

    With Porcello, they didn't want to write a check that large, pure and simple. The lesson that needs to be learned there is the one BP researched earlier this year on whether it made sense to pay over slot for talent that's dropping due to signability concerns -- and concluded that it generally did.
    Quote Originally Posted by lollipopcurve
    I think the Kazmir/Gruler situation, and the Jered Weaver/Bailey situation are better comps for Porcello in that the Reds avoided guys with high price tags/roster demands. The only year they were willing to dole out major league roster spots, they gave them to guys who turned out not to merit them. In other words, they've consistently botched when to spring for talent and when not to spring for talent at the top of the draft. While I don't get worked up over any individual misses -- they happen -- I would be very pleased if as an organization they put everybody into play -- from the big bonus babies to the HS catchers -- instead of disqualifying some very talented kids based on considerations beyond what they project those players to do on the field.

    This year, we're talking about guys like Hosmer and Alvarez, reportedly. Buckley has said the scouting department hasn't been given restrictions. I think that's a stock soundbyte any SD would deliver. I do think Hosmer will slide, and I think it's within the realm of possibility that Alvarez will, too, though quite unlikely.
    Good posts and you're both absolutely right.

    Clearly Lincecum and Porcello aren't exact parallels, but I'd argue in both cases there was a player on the board the Reds probably thought might get taken higher and in both cases the Reds didn't react, selecting the guy they were going to take anyway. The lesson I'd like to see the team learn is no matter what the circumstances, seize the opportunity if a top three prospect falls to you.
    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
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,251

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by podgejeff_ View Post
    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.
    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.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  11. #40
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,251

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedlegJake View Post
    I disagree that Kazmir was OBVIOUS. Gruler actually was much more projectable. Your point that there is ALWAYS someone else is exactly my point. All the crying and hand wringing is pointless. Your point about Wagner is exactly right - there is no way of knowing - about ANY of them. As for the regime doing dumb things I disagree, that's all. The last two drafts may not have been great to this point per the #1 pick but they were good strong drafts top to bottom.
    I disagree on the premise that Gruler was more projectable. Only the Reds scouts thought so. Nearly every publication had Kazmir as the top HS pitcher, AND he is LH. It was a money thing plain and simple.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  12. #41
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    34,852

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    I haven't seen him play, but have tracked his small sample size stats. I saw all the info about his abilities when he was drafted, but i don't trust scouts all the time. They tend to have a pack mentality.

    Has anybody seen him play in person or tv? Would like to hear what folks think after seeing him in person.

    Does he look like a catcher? Or is he just an athelete behind home plate?
    What are his natural abilities (the reason he got drafted)? Does he have a quick bat? Good foot work? A strong arm?
    Mesoraco has a laser arm behind the plate. He has good footwork, but it seems to me to be slow at the time. I think its because he is trying to get himself in the perfect throwing position right now though as he jumps up to make the throw. Even with that keeping his pop time down, he is still likely producing a strong pop time. His bat is quick and in the long run I am not concerned with his bat. He just needs more time thats all.

  13. #42
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    34,852

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by TRF View Post
    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.
    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.

  14. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    princeton, nj
    Posts
    9,482

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    I think that the importance of making educated judgements on Mesoraco is two-fold:

    1. the Reds have a top pick this year, and there may be a catcher of talent appropriate to the pick. usually you don't pick a catcher that high if you've got one in your system already. but, do you have one in your system? my answer is probably not

    2. there's a new GM, and he likely has the power to replace the SD. he needs to make that decision, and Stubbs/Mesoraco (and others that were available) are part of that evaluation.

  15. #44
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,134

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by princeton View Post
    I think that the importance of making educated judgements on Mesoraco is two-fold:

    1. the Reds have a top pick this year, and there may be a catcher of talent appropriate to the pick. usually you don't pick a catcher that high if you've got one in your system already. but, do you have one in your system? my answer is probably not

    2. there's a new GM, and he likely has the power to replace the SD. he needs to make that decision, and Stubbs/Mesoraco (and others that were available) are part of that evaluation.
    Very good points. I'll add one more:

    3. On the off chance the team's recent hot streak is a sign of things to come, the major league club may be looking to add major league talent this summer. If so, Mesoraco, still wearing the laurels of being a #15 overall pick, might be somebody the Reds want to trade for that major league talent if the organization deems his future to be a bit too vague for its liking. It costs top prospects to get quality major leaguers, so is Mesoraco one you keep or one you trade?
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  16. #45
    Will post for food BuckeyeRedleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Dublin, OH
    Posts
    5,328

    Re: thumbs still bad?

    Throw him in with Griffey (and pay the rest of Griffey's salary in '08) to Seattle for Clement.


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