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.
"All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH
Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS