Turn Off Ads?
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 84

Thread: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

  1. #16
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,163

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by princeton View Post
    Reds have sandbagged him. He might as well learn a trade while he's twiddling his thumbs waiting for them to decide where to play his bat.
    He'll start next season in AA at age 23 and could work his way into ML regular gig when he's 24. That's hardly a sandbagging.
    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. #17
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,163

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    The Reds are undoubtedly going to add catching in trades or free agency.

    Period.

    All the rest of this is irrelevant. All teams don't necessarily have all the answers in the farm system. Sometimes you go shopping. The Reds undoubtedly will.
    Last year when presented with a catching dearth they added Paul Bako. That was exciting.

    I'm sure they will go shopping for a major league solution. Whether they actually land something worth having or they invest in the downside of Bengie Molina's career we'll have to see.

    Yet that doesn't change the calculus of the larger problem. The Reds' long-term catching solution at the moment is hoping that Devin Mesoraco turns into something. The backup plan is maybe some of these other guys can be backup catchers.

    I know I should probably stop thinking along the lines of the Reds conducting themselves like a major league franchise with an eye on winning something in the future and ignore that Hanigan/Castillo/Tatum is the sort of thing you should be sifting through for AAA filler, but I'm hard-headed (and I never was able to be smug about a team that sucks).

    I actually think the Reds should make a number of strategic moves in this area in order to shore up an identifiable organizational weakness.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  4. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    princeton, nj
    Posts
    9,482

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    He'll start next season in AA at age 23 and could work his way into ML regular gig when he's 24. That's hardly a sandbagging.

    they'll still be thinking what-is-his-position at 24

  5. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,703

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Don't know much about Turner's physical makeup, or how well he plays second base, but he would seem to make some sense for three reasons: 1. Phillips 2. Richar 3. Valaika

  6. #20
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,163

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by princeton View Post
    they'll still be thinking what-is-his-position at 24
    They'll still be thinking that when he's 28. They aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

    That said, he'll hit enough that the answer won't be catcher. In fact we both know what his position will be - whatever position the Reds need filled when he's raking his way through AAA.
    Last edited by M2; 09-09-2008 at 06:24 PM.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  7. #21
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,429

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Nearly every team in baseball has questions for the future at catching. The amount of teams with legit options at catcher in the upper minors can be counted on one hand. Its not only a Reds problem, its a nearly every team problem.

  8. #22
    Let's ride BRM's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Colorado's eastern plains
    Posts
    11,232

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Nearly every team in baseball has questions for the future at catching. The amount of teams with legit options at catcher in the upper minors can be counted on one hand. Its not only a Reds problem, its a nearly every team problem.
    Personally, I don't care what other team's problems are. The Reds have an issue with catching depth in the minors. There aren't many options (1?) as a possible long-term solution. I'd like to see them get proactive in trying to rectify that.

  9. #23
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,163

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Nearly every team in baseball has questions for the future at catching. The amount of teams with legit options at catcher in the upper minors can be counted on one hand. Its not only a Reds problem, its a nearly every team problem.
    And yet BA just called this "Year of the Catcher" and rattled off 19 prospect catchers from something like a dozen different organizations.

    That other franchises have their troubles in this area doesn't absolve the Reds from trying to do better. I'd like the Reds to be one of the organizations showing strength at a high demand, low supply position. I know, I'm clearly crazy for thinking like that. This team puts a lot of effort into finishing 22nd or 23rd every year and I should be happy with that.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  10. #24
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,429

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    And yet BA just called this "Year of the Catcher" and rattled off 19 prospect catchers from something like a dozen different organizations.

    That other franchises have their troubles in this area doesn't absolve the Reds from trying to do better. I'd like the Reds to be one of the organizations showing strength at a high demand, low supply position. I know, I'm clearly crazy for thinking like that. This team puts a lot of effort into finishing 22nd or 23rd every year and I should be happy with that.
    Actually it does.... because if nearly everyone else is having issues at catcher, the teams with actual catchers aren't going to likely move them, and if they do, teams are going to be severely overpaying for them. It would be fantastic if the Reds had about 3 or 4 guys that were legit catching prospects.... but thats just not a realistic option for anyone almost.

    BA can call it what they want, but I want to ask them how many of those catchers actually have a shot at playing catcher in the majors? A lot of the 'catching prospects' on the top of my mind right now have some major questions about their ability to stick at catcher.

  11. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    13,711

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Actually it does.... because if nearly everyone else is having issues at catcher, the teams with actual catchers aren't going to likely move them, and if they do, teams are going to be severely overpaying for them. It would be fantastic if the Reds had about 3 or 4 guys that were legit catching prospects.... but thats just not a realistic option for anyone almost.

    BA can call it what they want, but I want to ask them how many of those catchers actually have a shot at playing catcher in the majors? A lot of the 'catching prospects' on the top of my mind right now have some major questions about their ability to stick at catcher.
    Does the article contain a list of the "top 19 catching prospects?" The description in this thread implies that there are just certain catchers mentioned in an article.

    If there were an article with the top 19 catcher prospects in the minors, I'm fairly certain that Mesoraco would be in there. And Tatum might even sneak in at the end of the list.

    So I don't know what this whole discussion is about. Very few teams have first round catching picks like Mesoraco in their system.

  12. #26
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,163

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Actually it does.... because if nearly everyone else is having issues at catcher, the teams with actual catchers aren't going to likely move them, and if they do, teams are going to be severely overpaying for them. It would be fantastic if the Reds had about 3 or 4 guys that were legit catching prospects.... but thats just not a realistic option for anyone almost.
    So maybe it would be a good idea to stock the minors with more than one kid who MIGHT be an every day solution. You're making my case for me. A convert or two could rescue the franchise from the have-not syndrome you just described.

    Maybe it's also worth overpaying if there's a kid you really like. It was only the start of this season where I wanted to overpay Homer Bailey for Chris Iannetta.

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    BA can call it what they want, but I want to ask them how many of those catchers actually have a shot at playing catcher in the majors? A lot of the 'catching prospects' on the top of my mind right now have some major questions about their ability to stick at catcher.
    You already know the answer to that. Most won't make it (and some not mentioned in the article will). Yet all the Reds have is one big maybe at catcher at the moment.

    Since they've been incompetent at incompetence (never getting a high enough draft pick to land a Wieters or a Posey) they're going to need multiple options to overcome the prospect dropout rate that affects catchers.

    Organizationally, are the Reds going to do anything about this? Or are they just going to collect journeymen and wait for the next draft?
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  13. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    13,711

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    So maybe it would be a good idea to stock the minors with more than one kid who MIGHT be an every day solution. You're making my case for me. A convert or two could rescue the franchise from the have-not syndrome you just described.

    Maybe it's also worth overpaying if there's a kid you really like. It was only the start of this season where I wanted to overpay Homer Bailey for Chris Iannetta.



    You already know the answer to that. Most won't make it (and some not mentioned in the article will). Yet all the Reds have is one big maybe at catcher at the moment.

    Since they've been incompetent at incompetence (never getting a high enough draft pick to land a Wieters or a Posey) they're going to need multiple options to overcome the prospect dropout rate that affects catchers.

    Organizationally, are the Reds going to do anything about this? Or are they just going to collect journeymen and wait for the next draft?
    Last year, Mesoraco was the Reds first pick. They also picked a number of other catchers, including Wideman at number 11. This year, less so, but Kyle Day of MSU was selected at number 12. Another college catcher at 18.

    They clearly have addressed catching in the system, will continue to do so, and will acquire additional guys in trades.

  14. #28
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,163

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    Does the article contain a list of the "top 19 catching prospects?" The description in this thread implies that there are just certain catchers mentioned in an article.

    If there were an article with the top 19 catcher prospects in the minors, I'm fairly certain that Mesoraco would be in there. And Tatum might even sneak in at the end of the list.

    So I don't know what this whole discussion is about. Very few teams have first round catching picks like Mesoraco in their system.
    It wasn't a specific list.

    That said, there is no way on God's green earth that Tatum would make a top 20 catching prospect list. That's just silly. And, given the number of catchers who actually had big seasons in 2008, Mesoraco would stand on a sliver of a chance (because there comes a time where what you do matters a lot more than where you got drafted).
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  15. #29
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,163

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    Last year, Mesoraco was the Reds first pick. They also picked a number of other catchers, including Wideman at number 11. This year, less so, but Kyle Day of MSU was selected at number 12. Another college catcher at 18.

    They clearly have addressed catching in the system, will continue to do so, and will acquire additional guys in trades.
    Yep, they draft catchers every year. They draft pitchers every year too. That's probably why they've had such good pitching this decade.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  16. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    13,711

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    It wasn't a specific list.

    That said, there is no way on God's green earth that Tatum would make a top 20 catching prospect list. That's just silly. And, given the number of catchers who actually had big seasons in 2008, Mesoraco would stand on a sliver of a chance (because there comes a time where what you do matters a lot more than where you got drafted).
    BA recently discussed Tatum in its Hot List and I believe reported a view that Tatum would be a major league regular. Some catchers develop more slowly at the plate.


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