Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 84

Thread: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

  1. #46
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,448

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    I would much rather overpay money to go get a catcher capable of being average than overpaying talent to get the same guy. I don't think I have said anything about cnoverting guys to catcher. Even still, the odds that anyone you convert is ready to catch in the major leagues before 2012 is very unlikely.

    And no, you don't full grasp what I am saying. I am saying don't overpay for a catcher just because you don't have one ready to take over from your system simply for the reason that you don't have one. Free agency is always an option to fill that role at the major league level. Continue drafting catchers and hope one or more pans out. Convert a guy or two into catchers and hope something clicks. I am just not into overpaying for a catcher in the minor leagues simply because we lack catchers in the system.
    I like spending money better than talent too, but Bailey for Iannetta would have been a steal (the Reds' overrated prospect for the Rockies' underrated catcher). Sometimes it's better to have their guy than yours, and sometimes it's better to have yours. Being able to make the right call (as opposed to refusing to even consider your options) is likely the difference between success and continued failure for an organization like the Reds.

    And you keep saying the same thing with seemingly no thought as to its ramifications. What it boils down to is "keep doing what you're doing." Yeah, maybe you'd convert a guy, though it sounds like you're pretty much just paying lip service to it (you haven't mentioned a single name). You're not coming across as someone who thinks the Reds should get aggressive about their internal options and you're actively arguing against pretty much any consideration of external options. At some point in the next year or two the Reds will be trading a veteran player and it might make sense to prioritize a young catcher as part of the return.

    In the meantime your prescription is draft and wait. I agree with you that converted catchers likely won't prove a quick fix, but any fix or advancement of the timetable when you can actually produce a quality catcher would be an improvement.

    And that's the point. The Reds don't have a compelling answer at catcher right now and if you look at their system, they might be in the same position for a long time to come. Some sort of reaction, some change in standard operating procedure, is warranted. And even if you're only going to draft and wait, is there perhaps a better way of picking catchers with some actual upside?
    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. #47
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,925

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Of course its all your opinion on the 'rated'ness over Homer Bailey or Iannetta. Who is to say Iannetta was even available? Why would the Rockies have made him available? It wouldn't make sense for them to do so, he was a premiere catching prospect.

    As for switching someone to catcher, I don't have any names. There is a whole lot that goes into making a catcher that no number I can see a stat line is going to tell me that makes someone a good guy to perhaps convert. No one on this site likely has enough insight on these guys to make the right decision on who could potentially cut it as a catcher.

    My solution is likely just like everyone elses in baseball. Draft and develop. If a trade opens up for one, then go for it. There aren't many teams lining up to trade catchers with upside though, especially ones with upside who have already produced. Sure it would be great to go snag a guy like Wilson Ramos or Jonathon Lucroy, but odds are they aren't available for something reasonable.

    How they go about fixing the lack of catching is one thing... but its still not a Reds problem, for the most part its a baseball problem because good catchers are extremely hard to come by. Convert a guy or two, draft a few in the 4th-10th rounds.... odds are you still don't see much turning out because, catchers don't usually turn out.

  4. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,626

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    I think there is still a strong possibility that all the Homer Bailey critics/knockers/undersellers will have to eat major crow. Where else do you find a 96 mph heater, 87 slider, 18 inch down-breaking curveball, and a change he's beginning to learn to throw for strikes? Sure the kid's struggled, like a lot of other guys who had such overpowering stuff they never had to learn to pitch, and he might turn out to be a bust. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. THERE'S A LOT OF TALENT THERE. If somebody trades us for him, it's because they think they have a chance to take us to the cleaners.

  5. #49
    Member kpresidente's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,316

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Alonso to catcher.

    I'm kidding.

    Or am I?

  6. #50
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,448

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Of course its all your opinion on the 'rated'ness over Homer Bailey or Iannetta.
    Well, anyone with a predisposition toward honesty would have to admit that Bailey (both his performance and his stuff over the past two seasons) was vastly overrated by ratings houses like BA. As for Iannetta, the Rockies gave Yorvit Torrealba a two-year, $7.25M contract to be their main catcher, something they'd have never done had they properly recognized that Iannetta would be the superior player. Given what he's done this season, that would be a fairly clear underrating.

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Who is to say Iannetta was even available? Why would the Rockies have made him available? It wouldn't make sense for them to do so, he was a premiere catching prospect.
    No one's to say to that and let's hyperfocus on that detail so we can avoid any intellectual consideration of the larger point, shall we? I mean, the fact that the Rockies had signed a veteran to start instead of Iannetta, let's blithely ignore that. Maybe Dan O'Dowd would have been impossible to deal with. So let's never consider the possibility that any options have ever existed outside of what actually occurred. Let's be that obdurate.

    Of course, if we were to allow ourselves to think about subjects like this, rather than drum up endless hypotheticals as to why it never would have happened (and we already know it didn't), then perhaps, just perhaps, we might recognize that sometimes an organization has an overrated prospect. I don't care what his name is. Some kids are overrated.

    And what will the Reds do the next time they've got one of those? Heck, pick your most-overrated Reds prospect and then start to muse on what you might be able to get for him. Surely somewhere out there, you'll recognize there's a kid who's blocked by a veteran or a kid who's struggled, but you like his future. Maybe that's who you'd trade your overrated prospect for. Anyone can play. It's that simple.

    Would you be "overpaying?" Technically you might be, but you'd be getting someone you want for someone you think isn't all that and a bag of chips.

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    As for switching someone to catcher, I don't have any names. There is a whole lot that goes into making a catcher that no number I can see a stat line is going to tell me that makes someone a good guy to perhaps convert. No one on this site likely has enough insight on these guys to make the right decision on who could potentially cut it as a catcher.
    Yes, it's completely arcane and only advanced Jedi scouts know how to do it. Everyone else should banish all such thoughts from their minds.

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    My solution is likely just like everyone elses in baseball. Draft and develop. If a trade opens up for one, then go for it. There aren't many teams lining up to trade catchers with upside though, especially ones with upside who have already produced. Sure it would be great to go snag a guy like Wilson Ramos or Jonathon Lucroy, but odds are they aren't available for something reasonable.

    How they go about fixing the lack of catching is one thing... but its still not a Reds problem, for the most part its a baseball problem because good catchers are extremely hard to come by. Convert a guy or two, draft a few in the 4th-10th rounds.... odds are you still don't see much turning out because, catchers don't usually turn out.
    Again, did you miss where BA is touting the relative surplus of catchers in the prospects ranks at the moment? Good catching prospects, while far from plentiful, aren't extremely hard to come by at this moment. Yes, the current bubble will pop (all do sooner or later), but there's catchers out in them thar hills and the Reds currently don't have much to show outside of a claim that hasn't produced yet.

    Clearly, you're bereft of ideas. Yeah, draft and develop. Draft who? Develop how? You don't know. Make a trade if someone comes available, but no one's going to trade a catching prospect, ever, and even if they did the Reds shouldn't trade anyone of any quality to get that catcher because lots of other teams don't have squat on the catching front either.

    And here's where I fault myself for spending all this back and forth with the guy who's got zero ideas instead of engaging with the good folks who've actually posted some. That's going to stop with this post, guaranteed.
    Last edited by M2; 09-09-2008 at 11:16 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. #51
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,448

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by kpresidente View Post
    Alonso to catcher.

    I'm kidding.

    Or am I?
    I was hoping someone would bring up his name.

    While I'd put him in the Todd Frazier category of, hopefully, hitting too well to ever slow down to learn how to catch, I like that sort of reckless thinking.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  8. #52
    One and a half men Patrick Bateman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,966

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    I was hoping someone would bring up his name.

    While I'd put him in the Todd Frazier category of, hopefully, hitting too well to ever slow down to learn how to catch, I like that sort of reckless thinking.
    I'd have to agree with the Frazier like grouping.

    One guy is Neftali Soto... he's again, a guy that looks like he's going to be on a corner because of his eventual size. He's athlethic, and young, and could make an interesting experiment given that his bat looks semi-interesting. Of the better prospects for the Reds, he makes the most sense to move. He also has some discipline issues that might stall his bat somewhere along the way, but if he took to catching well, that really wouldn't be the case. Same level of Meseraco, but his bat is way more advanced, and wouldn't have to putter around in the minors for a while before his bat is ready.

  9. #53
    Member SMcGavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    1,483

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Back when we drafted Alonso I thought about him as a catcher. After a google search I came upon this:

    “Currently I am playing 1st base and I am the back-up catcher. I think I will end up being a first baseman at Miami."
    That was Yonder Alonso before his freshman year at Miami. I think he's an advanced bat that we don't want to slow down by making him learn the nuances of catching. But if he was going to be the backup catcher at Miami it's likely he's played catcher before at some point in his life. Just food for thought.

  10. #54
    Member kpresidente's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,316

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    I was hoping someone would bring up his name.
    I was hoping somebody else would respond and not call me crazy.

    I have some pro's for Alonso -> catcher:

    1. He was originally drafted as a catcher out of high-school by the Twins. Admittedly, they didn't draft him because of his glove.
    2. He was Miami's backup catcher as a freshman.
    3. Scouting reports say he has a strong arm.
    4. He's not known for his defense elsewhere, so it won't cost you a glove.
    5. Opens up LF or 1B in the future for another big bat.
    6. He looks like a catcher.
    7. His father was a catcher.

    Dusty would be sold on #6 and #7. Seriously, though, he probably has the fundamentals of the position down. You don't have to teach him the footwork or how to throw from your ear. The rest is just cereberal stuff, which anybody can learn if they put in the effort, or is just natural ability, which you either have or you don't.

    I wouldn't normally suggest this kind of thing, but, desperate times...
    Last edited by kpresidente; 09-09-2008 at 11:37 PM.

  11. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,626

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Why would Alonso be interested in being a catcher?

  12. #56
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,925

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    No one's to say to that and let's hyperfocus on that detail so we can avoid any intellectual consideration of the larger point, shall we? I mean, the fact that the Rockies had signed a veteran to start instead of Iannetta, let's blithely ignore that. Maybe Dan O'Dowd would have been impossible to deal with. So let's never consider the possibility that any options have ever existed outside of what actually occurred. Let's be that obdurate.
    Or we can just be realistic and take a good strong guess that he probably wasn't going to be had for anything resembling an even trade. Sure, we could have gotten him, but it likely would have taken a lot more than it should have.

    Of course, if we were to allow ourselves to think about subjects like this, rather than drum up endless hypotheticals as to why it never would have happened (and we already know it didn't), then perhaps, just perhaps, we might recognize that sometimes an organization has an overrated prospect. I don't care what his name is. Some kids are overrated.
    Sure. Identifying and moving those guys is ideal.


    Would you be "overpaying?" Technically you might be, but you'd be getting someone you want for someone you think isn't all that and a bag of chips.
    Then you aren't overpaying at that point.


    Yes, it's completely arcane and only advanced Jedi scouts know how to do it. Everyone else should banish all such thoughts from their minds.
    Exactly, I knew you would see that light.


    Again, did you miss where BA is touting the relative surplus of catchers in the prospects ranks at the moment? Good catching prospects, while far from plentiful, aren't extremely hard to come by at this moment. Yes, the current bubble will pop (all do sooner or later), but there's catchers out in them thar hills and the Reds currently don't have much to show outside of a claim that hasn't produced yet.
    I saw where they were touting the relative surplus of guys who wear catchers gear in the prospect ranks. I didn't read the article, so I don't know who all was listed, but I bet half of them either can't hit or can't catch without knowing any of the names.

    Clearly, you're bereft of ideas. Yeah, draft and develop. Draft who? Develop how? You don't know. Make a trade if someone comes available, but no one's going to trade a catching prospect, ever, and even if they did the Reds shouldn't trade anyone of any quality to get that catcher because lots of other teams don't have squat on the catching front either.
    Yes, I have no idea. As far as who to draft, I go with the toolsy types at the catcher position all day long. How to develop them depends on the player, so to delve into that one is pointless unless I know which exact player we are talking about. As for the rest of your rambling, well thats all it was.

  13. #57
    Member kpresidente's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,316

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by HokieRed View Post
    Why would Alonso be interested in being a catcher?
    At 1B he's lost in the crowd. At catcher, he could be a perennial all-star. Besides, maybe he likes catching. Who knows?

  14. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,072

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by HokieRed View Post
    Why would Alonso be interested in being a catcher?
    His plus-bat at a position where a .715 OPS is the average...can you imagine the money he'd make?
    I hope it's never sunny in Philly again.

  15. #59
    BobC, get a legit F.O.! Mario-Rijo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Springfield, Ohio
    Posts
    9,054

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Quote Originally Posted by HokieRed View Post
    Why would Alonso be interested in being a catcher?
    And do the Reds feel his bat is too good to move to a position that could, would likely shorten his career.
    "You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one."

    --Woody Hayes

  16. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,626

    Re: Year of the Catcher? Not for the Reds

    Moving him to catcher will shorten his career, reduce his stats, and probably the money he'll make over a career. It will almost certainly slow down his progress to the majors. He's already on the fastest of tracks. There's absolutely nothing in it for him to consider a move to catcher.


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