Sickel's Reds Top 20...

[Mario-Rijo]

That's understandable, but we just grade prospects differently. Henry would miss out on my top-40 prospect list, but I like to value high ceilings. If a guy with a high ceiling fulfills his potential, he can be worth a lot more than 10 Sean Henrys.

But how can you rate a prospect strictly on ceiling? I mean in the end it's not about ceiling but whether or not they can make it at all. At least it should come into play before you start taking ceiling into consideration shouldn't it?

For example you have Justin Reed on your list, explain to me why he is more valuable a prospect than Henry at this current time. I mean at some point production, skill and the like has to play a part in it.

Plus I'd argue that if it's ceiling that you lean towards then one of us is wrong about who has the higher one between Henry and Heisey.

[RedLegSuperStar]

what about Homer Bailey?

[dougdirt]

what about Homer Bailey?

He isn't a prospect anymore as he has pitched more than 50 innings in the majors.

[Caveat Emperor]

No top-ranked starting pitching prospects?

Feels like old-times.

[camisadelgolf]

But how can you rate a prospect strictly on ceiling? I mean in the end it's not about ceiling but whether or not they can make it at all. At least it should come into play before you start taking ceiling into consideration shouldn't it?

For example you have Justin Reed on your list, explain to me why he is more valuable a prospect than Henry at this current time. I mean at some point production, skill and the like has to play a part in it.

Plus I'd argue that if it's ceiling that you lean towards then one of us is wrong about who has the higher one between Henry and Heisey.

Just so it's clear, I try to balance performance with ceiling. However, if a player hasn't yet played, ceiling is pretty much all I have to base it off of. I would rate Yorman Rodriguez as a Reds top-10 prospect based on what I've heard about him even though I've never seen him played or any of his stats.

In the Justin Reed/Sean Henry comparison, I'll show you my train of thought.

Justin Reed is said to have the physical skills to play a good center field. He apparently made some of the best catches in Dayton this year. Sean Henry, on the other hand, is seen as more of a corner outfielder who could play center in a pinch.
Advantage: Reed

Justin Reed has more power potential and is listed as slightly bigger than Sean Henry.
Advantage: Reed

As far as speed goes, it appears that the two are even. I believe Reed is a little faster, but Henry apparently knows how to use his speed better.
Advantage: none

Sean Henry will always win the plate discipline battle.
Advantage: neither

Henry and Reed seem to be on about the same pace as far as advancing through levels at the same age. Justin Reed was supposedly more raw coming out of high school, so he may spend some more time in A+, but time will tell. So far, neither one has an advantage.
Advantage: neither

Although Justin Reed is much more raw, he does have a higher ceiling. His first year out of high school was a disaster, but his second year in rookie ball showed great improvement. His numbers at Dayton were mediocre, but I don't think the numbers do his improvement justice. He had doubled his playing time from the year before, his defense improved significantly, and he showed more power. 2009 will be a big year for him. If he and Henry both duplicate their 2008 performances, then I'll concede that Henry is the better prospect, but in the meantime, I like that Reed has more raw skills and still has a chance to turn them into production. Reed's numbers are underwhelming, but they're not far from respectable. It's just a matter of building on what he's learned before he's a top-tier prospect.

As for Henry vs. Heisey, they're pretty much the same except that Chris Heisey plays much better defense and has noticeably better plate discipline.

[redsof72]

Couple of things about the list that caught my attention. First, he is perhaps the first person I have seen to rank Stewart that highly, and I have stated several times here that I think Stewart belongs in the top 10 and ahead of Lotzkar. Second, he does not have Mesoraco in his top 20, which I also agree with, though I am not ready to completely write off Mesoraco. Most of these lists by national writers still go heavily on reputation, so I was surprised to see he did not have Mesoraco in there.

I also agree with the idea that we need more information on the 16 year olds before we try to rate them. I talked to some players who saw those guys in instructional league and they said it was crazy that they got the money they did based on what they saw, ability-wise. I am thinking back to a player from a few years back named Alejandro Diaz who was also signed to a huge contract as a free agent out of the Dominican and once he got here, it was obvious that he was overrated. Duran and Rodriguez may become stars someday but all we know about them now is that they got a lot of money and are young.

[lollipopcurve]

I talked to some players who saw those guys in instructional league and they said it was crazy that they got the money they did based on what they saw, ability-wise. I am thinking back to a player from a few years back named Alejandro Diaz who was also signed to a huge contract as a free agent out of the Dominican and once he got here, it was obvious that he was overrated.

Redsof72, while it's definitely possible these two players have too much hype, isn't it pretty standard that older, less well compensated players will have this kind of reaction?

[OnBaseMachine]

Redsof72, while it's definitely possible these two players have too much hype, isn't it pretty standard that older, less well compensated players will have this kind of reaction?

That's exactly what I was thinking. Plus, they are only 16-years old. Even the best 16 years old in the world have flaws. Jay Bruce wasn't much of a prospect when he was 16...

[redsof72]

No question some of the older players who got very small signing bonuses might have some resentment towards guys who got millions. That point could be valid.

[HBP]

No top-ranked starting pitching prospects?

Feels like old-times.

Hopefully Lotzkar has changed that by June next year.

[TRF]

Couple of things about the list that caught my attention. First, he is perhaps the first person I have seen to rank Stewart that highly, and I have stated several times here that I think Stewart belongs in the top 10 and ahead of Lotzkar. Second, he does not have Mesoraco in his top 20, which I also agree with, though I am not ready to completely write off Mesoraco. Most of these lists by national writers still go heavily on reputation, so I was surprised to see he did not have Mesoraco in there.

I also agree with the idea that we need more information on the 16 year olds before we try to rate them. I talked to some players who saw those guys in instructional league and they said it was crazy that they got the money they did based on what they saw, ability-wise. I am thinking back to a player from a few years back named Alejandro Diaz who was also signed to a huge contract as a free agent out of the Dominican and once he got here, it was obvious that he was overrated. Duran and Rodriguez may become stars someday but all we know about them now is that they got a lot of money and are young.

The problem with Diaz was that IF he were actually the age he said he was, his upside was huge.

Too bad he was SEVERAL years older than that.

[Mario-Rijo]

Just so it's clear, I try to balance performance with ceiling. However, if a player hasn't yet played, ceiling is pretty much all I have to base it off of. I would rate Yorman Rodriguez as a Reds top-10 prospect based on what I've heard about him even though I've never seen him played or any of his stats.

I guess that's reasonable as some have ranked Michael Inoa pretty high for the A's. However I am of the mind a player has to show me something 1st before I rank him high, and even more so a 16-17 year old kid. There is simply too many of these guys who never pan out at all despite their hype.

In the Justin Reed/Sean Henry comparison, I'll show you my train of thought.

Justin Reed is said to have the physical skills to play a good center field. He apparently made some of the best catches in Dayton this year. Sean Henry, on the other hand, is seen as more of a corner outfielder who could play center in a pinch.
Advantage: Reed

Justin Reed does have the physical tools to play CF but you're opinon on Henry I don't quite understand. I have on at least 2 maybe 3 different occassions listed a scouting report on Henry via BA that says he has the tools & the aptitude to play CF as well, I don't know if you have seen that or not. The Reds not playing him in CF is a mystery too me.

BA:

Though Henry, 22 (this should say 21), has made much slower progress than Castro, he was beginning to find his groove with St. Lucie. A 20th-round pick in 2004 from Diablo Valley (Calif.) CC, Henry spent nearly three full years in short-season ball, not joining low Class A Hagerstown until last August. An aggressive, athletic player with both bat and running speed, the righthanded-hitting Henry was off to a .293/.355/.456 start with St. Lucie, with 11 homers and 57 RBIs in 450 at-bats. He also chipped in 26 doubles, seven triples and 18 steals (in 29 attempts). Drafted as a shortstop, Henry was moved to second base in 2005 and to center field the next year, where he has shown aptitude.

Justin Reed has more power potential and is listed as slightly bigger than Sean Henry.
Advantage: Reed

As far as speed goes, it appears that the two are even. I believe Reed is a little faster, but Henry apparently knows how to use his speed better.
Advantage: none

Reed does have more speed and power potential but Henry plays with more of each.

Sean Henry will always win the plate discipline battle.
Advantage: neither

If Henry has the plate discipline advantage, how is this neither, it's Reed vs. Henry?

Henry and Reed seem to be on about the same pace as far as advancing through levels at the same age. Justin Reed was supposedly more raw coming out of high school, so he may spend some more time in A+, but time will tell. So far, neither one has an advantage.
Advantage: neither

Again if this is a straight up comparison Henry played in AA, Reed in Low A. Henry very well could/should advance based on his play at this level, Reed not at all did he perform well enough to advance.

Although Justin Reed is much more raw, he does have a higher ceiling. His first year out of high school was a disaster, but his second year in rookie ball showed great improvement. His numbers at Dayton were mediocre, but I don't think the numbers do his improvement justice. He had doubled his playing time from the year before, his defense improved significantly, and he showed more power. 2009 will be a big year for him. If he and Henry both duplicate their 2008 performances, then I'll concede that Henry is the better prospect, but in the meantime, I like that Reed has more raw skills and still has a chance to turn them into production. Reed's numbers are underwhelming, but they're not far from respectable. It's just a matter of building on what he's learned before he's a top-tier prospect.

Fair enough Reed likely is the more talented of the 2 but I happen to think that Henry's talents are not as far away from Reed's as people think. I could be wrong but I would state that the BA article suggests that he has pretty good raw talent.

As for Henry vs. Heisey, they're pretty much the same except that Chris Heisey plays much better defense and has noticeably better plate discipline.

I'd say Henry is the more talented of the 2 but that Heisey is more polished which results in better production because Heisey isn't completely devoid of talent himself. And if I'm right Henry's production as he moves up will improve as he continues to refine his game, Heisey's production isn't likely to improve much and maybe not even stay the same, except for maybe an increase in pop that a lot of prospects get at age 24. Oh yeah that was the other thing about these 2 Heisey did most of his damage as a 23 yr old in A+ whereas Henry did most of his as a 22 yr old in AA.

All in all Reed might have more talent but hasn't come close to putting it together, will he ever, I have my doubts. But if he does it better be this coming year and in a big way. But Henry has finally put it together and at higher levels which IMO is more important and what makes him more valuable. Heisey and Henry are somewhat close overall but I think there is reason to expect a little more out of Henry which again makes him more valuable, seeing as how both have played quite well to this point.

[sh0619]

kudos to you Mario-Rijo...

[15fan]

One look at that list tells me that the cavalry is not on its way any time soon.

No MI gloves to be seen.

No C.

Matt Maloney is the only LHP.

A bunch of 4th/5th OFs, maybe.

2009 Better be a gooooooood draft.

[dougdirt]

One look at that list tells me that the cavalry is not on its way any time soon.

No MI gloves to be seen.

No C.

Matt Maloney is the only LHP.

A bunch of 4th/5th OFs, maybe.

2009 Better be a gooooooood draft.

Why do we need some cavalry is the question? Our rotation is under control through at least 2010, 2011 options on Arroyo and Harang.

Bruce and Votto are both here for 5 or more years unless we trade them. Phillips is here through 2011 with an option for 2012. Edwin is here for a few more years.

Yeah, we have a few needs like you noted, but there are trades and free agency options as well. Talent can be traded as there are guys blocked or guys coming up that make a veteran expendable. The Reds currently have a lot of talent at third base between EE, Frazier, Soto and Francisco. A move or two of these guys could help fill the other needs. The system doesn't always have to produce your needs, it can also be used to acquire your needs.