Daniel Tuttle or Pedro Viola?
Starter with a lot of potential and a good debut in the GCL that is very far away vs a reliever who is older but has electric stuff though he can't control it.... I can see where the debate for each side lies, but for me its easy. Tuttle. His fastball is just as good and he is a starter with strong production, even if it was at the rookie level. It beats an old reliever who had a WHIP over 1.50 and walked 6 guys per 9 innings.
Viola, who's got a much better shot of ever helping the major league squad.
All of these relievers on the cusp -- Ondrusek, Del Rosario, Viola -- started out as starters in the minors. That's the story for most major league relievers. Just because Tuttle is a starter *now* does little to distinguish him from these guys.
"Baseball is a very, very complex business. It's more of a people business than most businesses." - Bob Castellini
I went with Viola because I think Tuttle is the surgeon that Hawkeye and Trapper invented on MASH and until a prospect has been verified to exist outside of Arizona I have to go with the guy who may contribute in the bigs this year.
Went with Tuttle. Viola is 27 with control problems and in a 7 man pen is no better than 10th on the depth chart. A lot would have to go wrong for him to get the chance and by the time it does guys like Valiquette, Thurman and Joseph may pass him by.
I just don't see Viola having a lot of value to the Reds. Tuttle may never either but his lot in life is not as clearly poor as Viola's.
Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS