Turn Off Ads?
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 50

Thread: John Sickels on the Reds draft

  1. #31
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    33,752

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo View Post
    I assume since he was mostly used as a Reliever at TT most of this is directed at that and I can't imagine he'd be throwing that hard and then be tossing 89-93 as anything but a starter.

    PG Cross Checker and MLB.com.
    Those reports are over a year old.

    I have gotten two separate reports this year that have Stewart sitting 92-95 all game and hitting 96 MPH multiple times during the game. I saw his slider this year in Dayton. Its a plus pitch. Previous scouting reports back that up as well. His change up is in the 86-88 MPH range. When its on, its a good pitch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Betterread View Post
    Wow! You think Steward is a potential #1 after roughly two months of starting? You think his offspeed pitch is a 70 or higher. I salivate at the thought. Show me the recent independent scouting report rating his stuff, command and control and I'll believe.
    Well, as noted above I have more than one report on his velocity in the 92-95 range all game and hitting 96 multiple times during the games. His slider has been considered plus in the past and when I saw him in Dayton it still looked like a plus pitch (April). As for his control, just look at his walk rates. They are pretty darn good.

    I can't bust out the OFP report on him because well, I don't have one. I do know what I have been told though and what I have seen with my eyes.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #32
    Member OnBaseMachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    34,839

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    I've yet to hear anyone who has seen Stewart pitch in the Reds organization describe his slider as anything less than a plus pitch. Every report I've read on him has raved about his slider. I have to agree with Doug on Stewart's ceiling. A guy that can throw 92-95 and touch 96 with good sink while mixing in a plus slider and average changeup projects as a top-of-rotation starter to me.
    I miss Adam Dunn.

  4. #33
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    33,752

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    BTW, Stewart pitches tomorrow at 7:15pm. You can listen live here (not likely to work until about 7:00 or 7:05 though) if you want and listen for some velocities being mentioned throughout the broadcast (assuming the gun is working in Tennessee). We know his slider is a plus pitch. We know he gets a ton of groundballs (rates pushing 60% this year).

  5. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    princeton, nj
    Posts
    9,482

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    Quote Originally Posted by 11larkin11 View Post
    Quick question. If a team doesn't sign a sandwich pick, do they get compensation the next round. e.g. if we don't sign Boxberger, do we get a pick next year for it?
    I found this:



    Compensation for Failure to Sign High Draft Picks

    Teams that fail to sign a first or second round pick will be compensated by receiving a virtually identical pick (plus one) in the following year's draft (ex., a team that fails to sign the No. 5 pick in 2006 receives the No. 6 pick in 2007). A team that fails to sign a second round pick gets virtually the identical pick the following season regardless of the round (for example, if Boston fails to sign pick #62, it will receive pick #62A (~63) in the next year's draft, regardless of whether pick #62A falls in the supplemental round, the second round, or the third round). A team that fails to sign a third-round pick receives a sandwich pick between the third and fourth rounds. None of these picks may be forfeited. Additionally, these compensation picks do not count as a pick when counting picks 1-15 in the first round that are protected from Type A compensation.



    my take is yes, but failure to sign sandwich round selections isn't specifically mentioned.

  6. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,404

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    A note on previous "stuff" guys taken number 1 by our organization: Howington, Sowers, Wagner, Gruler. Three projectable Number 1's and a high profile reliever (even thought of as a possible starter, as some will remember). No guarantees in the first round or anywhere else. I'm happy with Leake.

  7. #36
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    17,972

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    Quote Originally Posted by GIDP View Post
    John Sickels always seems to like the Reds.
    I think he's generally pretty fair and unbiased (at least he'll admit when a bias colors his projection).

    Look how he graded Seattle's draft. The temptation might have been to give some grade inflation due to the proven record of the new guys running the Ms draft. I don't think he's guilty of pulling any punches on his assessment.

    He's always a great read.
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  8. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    princeton, nj
    Posts
    9,482

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    Quote Originally Posted by HokieRed View Post
    A note on previous "stuff" guys taken number 1 by our organization: Howington, Sowers, Wagner, Gruler. Three projectable Number 1's and a high profile reliever (even thought of as a possible starter, as some will remember). No guarantees in the first round or anywhere else. I'm happy with Leake.
    you're incorrect on Wagner (RP only) and Sowers (not a stuff guy, not a number 1). Gruler/Bailey is probably more what you're thinking.

    high school arms do get hurt. Bowden's team was particularly adept at finding the injuries. might have been better to have Costanza'd the first rounders and picked opposite to what they liked.

  9. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,404

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    I don't think I'm incorrect at all. Wagner was touted as having extraordinary stuff, which he did, and there was talk that he might start. The fact that Jeremy Sowers has not become a number 1 starter does not mean that wasn't the buzz about him when he was picked. It was, both in Cinti and later in Cleveland. My point was that you don't simply pick the Matzeks and then pencil in the number 1 starters four years later. It's a whole lot more mysterious than that.

  10. #39
    BobC, get a legit F.O.! Mario-Rijo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Springfield, Ohio
    Posts
    9,052

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    Quote Originally Posted by HokieRed View Post
    A note on previous "stuff" guys taken number 1 by our organization: Howington, Sowers, Wagner, Gruler. Three projectable Number 1's and a high profile reliever (even thought of as a possible starter, as some will remember). No guarantees in the first round or anywhere else. I'm happy with Leake.
    How about we note all the "stuff" guys we have passed on that have turned out for other teams while we're at it then. Sure there are no guarantees but there have been plenty of guys we continue to avoid and they turn out.

    Up to this point it's not necc. a big deal but when we have a team capable of competing in the playoffs we will need those types to lean on. I believe we have one in Cueto and I hope Volquez progresses into a consistently confident ace type, and that those young guns turn out to be devastating in the minors. But I also remember once upon a time when the NYM had an Isringhausen/Pulsipher/Wilson and when Oakland had Hudson/Mulder/Zito. One staff was beset by injuries the other was split up due to dollars. You need a steady flow. Let's hope the handful of promising arms we have both make it and can stay healthy.
    "You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one."

    --Woody Hayes

  11. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    518

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    Quote Originally Posted by HokieRed View Post
    I don't think I'm incorrect at all. Wagner was touted as having extraordinary stuff, which he did, and there was talk that he might start. The fact that Jeremy Sowers has not become a number 1 starter does not mean that wasn't the buzz about him when he was picked. It was, both in Cinti and later in Cleveland. My point was that you don't simply pick the Matzeks and then pencil in the number 1 starters four years later. It's a whole lot more mysterious than that.

    Wagner's slider was considered a plus plus pitch and his FB was slightly above, more for its movement than velocity. He had no real effective third pitch which is why he was a reliever. He had a violent delivery and when they smoothed it out his plus plus slider disappeared hence his lack of success.

    Sowers was more of a polished pitchablity guy than an elite stuff guy. There was discussion at the time that he was a reach because he was firmly commited to Vanderbilt and the Reds purposely punted the pick because they had budget issues from the draft the year before after signing Espinosa and Dane Sardinah to major league contracts.

  12. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    princeton, nj
    Posts
    9,482

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    Quote Originally Posted by HokieRed View Post
    I don't think I'm incorrect at all. Wagner was touted as having extraordinary stuff, which he did, and there was talk that he might start. The fact that Jeremy Sowers has not become a number 1 starter does not mean that wasn't the buzz about him when he was picked. It was, both in Cinti and later in Cleveland. My point was that you don't simply pick the Matzeks and then pencil in the number 1 starters four years later. It's a whole lot more mysterious than that.
    you can cherrypick pitchers to make your point (and others can cherrypick to refute your point) if you like. But at least cherrypick the correct type of pitchers. I'd go for stuff-plus collegiate starters, myself, since most are talking about Leake vs. Aaron Crow. there are certainly some bombs in that category. some big winners, as well. non-Reds, of course

  13. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,404

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    Quote Originally Posted by princeton View Post
    you can cherrypick pitchers to make your point (and others can cherrypick to refute your point) if you like. But at least cherrypick the correct type of pitchers. I'd go for stuff-plus collegiate starters, myself, since most are talking about Leake vs. Aaron Crow. there are certainly some bombs in that category. some big winners, as well. non-Reds, of course
    I'm not the one who initiated cherry-picking to criticize the draft or the strategies of Buckley. If you want to look at cherry-picking, look at claims like the ones asserted on this thread, or a similar one, that taking Alonso ahead of Smoak was somehow "overdrafting" or reaching--this because we took a guy 7th who had been picked in the top 10 by every conceivable mock draft. I was reacting to assertions that somehow Buckley doesn't take "stuff" guys as if that is some infallible strategy to get number 1 starters. And frankly I don't consider that the relevant comparison in this draft is between Crow and Leake. You can argue that the reason not to take Crow has something to do with his mechanics and his past injury. I'd say the more important question was taking Leake over Matzek. So Gruler is perfectly relevant. All I was doing was asking people to remember some of the Reds' history in taking guys with great velocity and supposedly plus-plus pitches.

  14. #43
    Party like it's 1990 Blitz Dorsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    4,716

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    Come on, Cline in the fourth round last year was a reach. Was there even a scouting report on him before the draft? Weren't even the people close to him shocked he was taken that high? He was getting ready to go to some really small Christian college and I don't think anyone had him projected as a top 10 round pick, let along top five rounds.

    That said, I hope Buckley was 100 percent right and Tyler Cline will be a stud for the Reds one day.

  15. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,404

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    I don't think we know enough about Cline yet to know whether he was a reach or not. He's a kid one year out of h.s. and being in the GCL is right about where you'd expect him to be. I have to say he's one of last year's picks that puzzles me. Let's see what he's got.

  16. #45
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    33,752

    Re: John Sickels on the Reds draft

    Quote Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey View Post
    Come on, Cline in the fourth round last year was a reach. Was there even a scouting report on him before the draft? Weren't even the people close to him shocked he was taken that high? He was getting ready to go to some really small Christian college and I don't think anyone had him projected as a top 10 round pick, let along top five rounds.

    That said, I hope Buckley was 100 percent right and Tyler Cline will be a stud for the Reds one day.
    I don't know how to say this nicely, but apparently Cline wasn't "college material" if you get my drift. Or so that was something I read on him. There was a lot going on with him his senior season where he apparently transferred schools during the season to pitch for his previous schools rival. Still the guy had a fastball that topped out at 94 MPH as a senior in high school. There were a bunch of scouting reports that were out there on him that didn't have him that high, but there were a few that did. It seems that the places who didn't see his 94 MPH game didn't think he was worthy of where he went.


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