The difference between Alonso and Stubbs/Mesoraco

[redsof72]

I have heard scouting directors talk about taking high school players because he feels they can do a better job of developing the player in their system than the player would get in college. Not sure if that's always true. It all depends on your coaches and your roving instructors. There are some ridiculously lazy, worthless coaches and rovers out there who amaze me at how they somehow stay employed while contributing almost nothing to justify their pay check. There is a huge difference from organization to organization.

I always feel like you are better off taking a college player that is three years older, simply because you have a better idea of what you are getting. But you can always shoot down that argument by pointing out that the best young players the Reds have, Bruce and Votto, were high school picks.

[bucksfan2]

it's a silly question, IMO. the pitcher isn't yours until after you draft him, so "your" pitcher isn't being abused by anyone. if you don't like how a kid was coached, then don't draft him.

Why is it a silly question? You have a choice when it comes to drafts. You have players who are HS players and college players. The HS players you will have more say in their development while the college players will have gone thought 3 years of advanced development by a college coach.

IMO too often College coaches ride their pitcher too hard and too long. Especially when it comes to College WS time. They don't have to worry about the lasting effects of pitching a pitcher on short rest in order to win. IIRC Dallas Buck was screwed up pretty good by his college coach. College coaches jobs depend on how well they succeed during a college season. However MLB front offices are often much more cautious with younger ball players.

[cincyinco]

I see both sides honestly..

If you're an organization like the braves, go ahead and draft the HS kid... The braves seemingly have a developmental system that is proven to produce.

The reds are not this team.. So it would seem wise to go the route princeton advocates. The reds might think the have the system in place to develope these guys, and I believe they have made strides... But they still have a ways to go, and still have only produced a cueto from the pitching side..

[dougdirt]

The reds are not this team.. So it would seem wise to go the route princeton advocates. The reds might think the have the system in place to develope these guys, and I believe they have made strides... But they still have a ways to go, and still have only produced a cueto from the pitching side..

At the same time, they haven't produced a college pitcher either. I personally don't care whether its a HS kid or a college kid taken as a pitcher. Both have a big uphill fight to be anything of substance in the majors and flop around the same rate over the past 10 years. I just want them to take the guy they feel has the best shot.

[princeton]

Why is it a silly question? You have a choice when it comes to drafts. You have players who are HS players and college players. The HS players you will have more say in their development while the college players will have gone thought 3 years of advanced development by a college coach.

IMO too often College coaches ride their pitcher too hard and too long. Especially when it comes to College WS time. They don't have to worry about the lasting effects of pitching a pitcher on short rest in order to win. IIRC Dallas Buck was screwed up pretty good by his college coach. College coaches jobs depend on how well they succeed during a college season. However MLB front offices are often much more cautious with younger ball players.

it's silly because you're acting like Dallas Buck was our player when he was in college, and that we needed to protect him. he wasn't ours; if we didn't like how he was treated, then let Arizona draft him.

on another note, I happen to think that HS coaches, legion coaches, travel coaches, and especially daddyball coaches abuse 17 year old arms more than college coaches abuse 20 year old arms.

[bucksfan2]

it's silly because you're acting like Dallas Buck was our player when he was in college, and that we needed to protect him. he wasn't ours; if we didn't like how he was treated, then let Arizona draft him.

on another note, I happen to think that HS coaches, legion coaches, travel coaches, and especially daddyball coaches abuse 17 year old arms more than college coaches abuse 20 year old arms.

Im not acting like he is ours. When it comes to a draft you get a choice. You get to chose whether you want to mold and develop a player or whether you want to chose another player who has been molded and developed by someone else.

[princeton]

I always feel like you are better off taking a college player that is three years older, simply because you have a better idea of what you are getting. But you can always shoot down that argument by pointing out that the best young players the Reds have, Bruce and Votto, were high school picks.

I've always preferred high school hitters with good strike zone judgement. Proably what I really want is maximum ceiling, and 18 year olds that know the strike zone have the best chance at becoming players capable of setting up major league pitchers

I'm not sure why such a bad development organization has had better luck with HS hitters than collegians. Seems counterintuitive, but it's been that way for a long while. Maybe we just can't successfully dissect the collegians with high ceilings from those with lower ones. At the HS level, that might be easier to see. For the love of Juan Duran, I hope so.

the highest ceiling hitters also tend to forego college

[gonelong]

Im not acting like he is ours. When it comes to a draft you get a choice. You get to chose whether you want to mold and develop a player or whether you want to chose another player who has been molded and developed by someone else.

You listed two choices, there are three (or more).

1. Choose the HS kid and mold him your way.
2. Choose the college kid that you don't like how he has been molded.
3. Choose the college kid whom you can either live with how he has been molded or appreciate how he has been molded.

If you don't like how a kid has been handled to date and that's a significant worry for you, don't draft him. Avoid 2 and concentrate on the kids in category 1 & 3.

GL

[princeton]

Im not acting like he is ours. When it comes to a draft you get a choice. You get to chose whether you want to mold and develop a player or whether you want to chose another player who has been molded and developed by someone else.

I've seen our mold.

better to get the older player. Maybe one of those college coaches knows what he's doing, unlike our people.

[Nugget]

The other issue which has not been addressed in the Alonso/Valaika/Frazier v Stubbs/Merascoro issues is that the Alonso's etc of this world do one thing very well - that is hit the ball. They are given some slack for being found wanting in other areas or at least play a position where being wanting in the area is not such a big issue getting to the Show. Stubbs/Merascoro have to do a number of things well but nothing great. These guys need more time. Its not an issue of knowing how to play the game its just that what they are being asked to do is not as simple as bashing the ball.

[M2]

on another note, I happen to think that HS coaches, legion coaches, travel coaches, and especially daddyball coaches abuse 17 year old arms more than college coaches abuse 20 year old arms.

Ain't that the truth. A lot of preps kids are walking around with arms straight out of a George Romero movie.

[Kingspoint]

Got to thinking on this as I was perusing the BA Reds top 10 prospects list. There's a common thread running through numbers 1, 2 and 4 (Yonder Alonso, Todd Frazier and Chris Valaika), namely that no one had to teach them how to play baseball after they got drafted. That doesn't mean they were or are finished products, just that they don't represent major development projects. They aren't toolsy kids in search of skills. They don't need to be torn down to the bare metal and rebuilt.

Drew Stubbs and Devin Mesoraco are projects and I think that's been the real objection to them. People have wanted the Reds to draft surer things with first round picks (e.g. pitchers with an arsenal ready-made for MLB success). The complaint isn't so much that they'll never be any good, more that the club doesn't need to be so theoretical in the first round. Maybe Frazier (who's been in the top 10 in OPS in every league he's played in since becoming a pro) and Valaika changed some thinking in the front office, which led to the selection of Alonso.

It will be interesting to see where the Reds go with their first pick in the next draft. If it's another kid who comes in a more ready-to-play package then I'd suggest we may be witnessing a change in organizational philosophy.

Since this is an organizational question, who's making these decisions? There has been 2 owners, 4 G.M.'s in the last 7 years. Even though coaches have changed dramatically over the last 3 G.M.'s, they only carry out what they're told from the top.

John Allen stepped down as COO in November of 2007 (last winter), after taking over for Marge Schott after she was forced from the League by the other all-male owners. I think John Allen had a lot to do with a lot of screwy things regarding the draft, and his being gone for the first time in many years, in my humble opinion, had the biggest impact on the draft in 2008. I've never liked John Allen and am very glad he's gone.

[dougdirt]

Since this is an organizational question, who's making these decisions? There has been 2 owners, 4 G.M.'s in the last 7 years. Even though coaches have changed dramatically over the last 3 G.M.'s, they only carry out what they're told from the top.

John Allen stepped down as COO in November of 2007 (last winter), after taking over for Marge Schott after she was forced from the League by the other all-male owners. I think John Allen had a lot to do with a lot of screwy things regarding the draft, and his being gone for the first time in many years, in my humble opinion, had the biggest impact on the draft in 2008. I've never liked John Allen and am very glad he's gone.

I think you are pretty offbase with John Allen and the draft, at least since Lindner stepped down. The Reds haven't made signability picks.

[princeton]

I actually think that the Reds have lately done a decent job of getting raw hitters to flash more bat. Chris Dickerson made the majors. I figured that Stubbs/Cozart would die upon advancement, and that the holes in the swings of Soto/Francisco/Justin Reed would already destroy them. still might happen. However, in the past, Reds would have already dropped most of this type of player. Instead, all have improved, and I'm actually interested in finding out what happens next with those guys, rather than dreading it.

ironically, I suspect that Mesoraco was drafted more for what the Reds thought was an advanced bat, rather than a project bat. He just didn't actually have what they thought that he had.

[M2]

I actually think that the Reds have lately done a decent job of getting raw hitters to flash more bat. Chris Dickerson made the majors. I figured that Stubbs/Cozart would die upon advancement, and that the holes in the swings of Soto/Francisco/Justin Reed would already destroy them. still might happen. However, in the past, Reds would have already dropped most of this type of player. Instead, all have improved, and I'm actually interested in finding out what happens next with those guys, rather than dreading it.

ironically, I suspect that Mesoraco was drafted more for what the Reds thought was an advanced bat, rather than a project bat. He just didn't actually have what they thought that he had.

Excellent points.