Turn Off Ads?
Page 10 of 33 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131420 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 481

Thread: Zach Stewart's progress

  1. #136
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Pook's Hill
    Posts
    1,552

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Quote Originally Posted by klw View Post
    TINSTAAPP?
    HUH?
    There is no such thing as a pitching prospect

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #137
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Shelburne Falls, MA
    Posts
    10,175

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Only time reveals whether a trade was successful or not. That's how I see it. The early returns favor the Reds on this one. But the story is not over.
    "Baseball is a very, very complex business. It's more of a people business than most businesses." - Bob Castellini

  4. #138
    Vampire Weekend @Bernie's camisadelgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    11,449

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Yet with the Reds, he dominated AA and had a 6.8% walk rate. Something is off with him. Just don't know what it is.
    sss

  5. #139
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    9,891

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Quote Originally Posted by kpresidente View Post
    My objection to the trade still stands. I always thought Rolen would be an upgrade, and defended him against other objectors who thought he wouldn't produce, but the point was that I didn't think the Reds would be good enough in the coming few seasons for it to matter. Sure enough, Rolen's playing lights out, and we're sitting at around .500.

    In the meantime, our much-vaunted young staff (Bailey, Volquez, and Cueto) are disappointing to say the least, and having another potential starter like Stewart in the pipelines would be a boon. Ditto for the Roenicke and the pen. Nick Massett ain't exactly the superstar everybody thought he was. Carlos Fisher hasn't panned out. In addition, we've got people saying we should trade BP to open up a spot for Frazier (!?), and nobody knows what to do with Francisco. In my world, they would platoon at 3B for years to come. Years when we might actually have all the pieces come together well enough to win something.
    I used to think like that too, but now I'm afraid you're dreaming for a day that will never come. You need to have great veterans to supplement some of the young guys. Just look at guys like Bruce and Stubbs, who were both more highly rated prospects than Francisco et. al, and look how long it is taking them to adjust to the big leagues- if they ever do. This is the same reason why you can't count on having a pitching staff of Chapman-Leake-Bailey-Cueto-Volquez. Not all of these guys will pan out, and the chances of them doing it at the same time are even less. Waiting for that to happen instead of proactively seeking to diversify and de-risk your team's exposure to prospects is something that every good GM must do. It is the reason why the 2003 Marlins had several veterans (Pudge, Encarnacion, Hollandsworth, Lowell) to supplement their young talent, and as far as I can tell they are the only team to win it all with mostly youngsters.

    The Marlins trade of Ryan Dempster for Juan Encarnacion (who hit .270 with 19HRs and 94 RBIs in '03) prior to their 2003 World Championship season is probably the closest thing to the Stewart-Rolen trade, and the Rolen trade was better once you factor in all the considerations. Dempster had proven a lot more than Stewart at that point, as he was 25 years old and had won 29 games with 380 K's over the previous two major league seasons.
    Last edited by Benihana; 05-09-2010 at 12:48 PM.
    Go BLUE!!!

  6. #140
    Member kpresidente's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,109

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Quote Originally Posted by Benihana View Post
    I used to think like that too, but now I'm afraid you're dreaming for a day that will never come. You need to have great veterans to supplement some of the young guys. Just look at guys like Bruce and Stubbs, who were both more highly rated prospects than Francisco et. al, and look how long it is taking them to adjust to the big leagues- if they ever do. This is the same reason why you can't count on having a pitching staff of Chapman-Leake-Bailey-Cueto-Volquez. Not all of these guys will pan out, and the chances of them doing it at the same time are even less. Waiting for that to happen instead of proactively seeking to diversify and de-risk your team's exposure to prospects is something that every good GM must do. It is the reason why the 2003 Marlins had several veterans (Pudge, Encarnacion, Hollandsworth, Lowell) to supplement their young talent, and as far as I can tell they are the only team to win it all with mostly youngsters.

    The Marlins trade of Ryan Dempster for Juan Encarnacion (who hit .270 with 19HRs and 94 RBIs in '03) prior to their 2003 World Championship season is probably the closest thing to the Stewart-Rolen trade, and the Rolen trade was better once you factor in all the considerations. Dempster had proven a lot more than Stewart at that point, as he was 25 years old and had won 29 games with 380 K's over the previous two major league seasons.
    Yeah, but in your example, the Marlins timed it right. You can make the case Encarnacion was a big part of their Championship. I wouldn't have a problem trading youth for vets if we were close (say, after Votto, Bruce, Alonso, etc and the pitchers get themselves settled) but don't do it early. We were still building, that was clear. So why get Rolen? The Reds always do this. They think they're closer than they are. Then they bring in a Rolen or a Gonzo or a Cordero and it never works out and ends up putting us yet another year behind. That's why the dream never comes, they always end up sabatoging it early. Then a bunch of fans and the FO gets tired of being "patient" and the cycle repeats. End result: 10-strait losing seasons. But patience isn't the problem, the problem is they're never quite patient enough.

  7. #141
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    9,891

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Quote Originally Posted by kpresidente View Post
    Yeah, but in your example, the Marlins timed it right. You can make the case Encarnacion was a big part of their Championship. I wouldn't have a problem trading youth for vets if we were close (say, after Votto, Bruce, Alonso, etc and the pitchers get themselves settled) but don't do it early. We were still building, that was clear. So why get Rolen? The Reds always do this. They think they're closer than they are. Then they bring in a Rolen or a Gonzo or a Cordero and it never works out and ends up putting us yet another year behind. That's why the dream never comes, they always end up sabatoging it early. Then a bunch of fans and the FO gets tired of being "patient" and the cycle repeats. End result: 10-strait losing seasons. But patience isn't the problem, the problem is they're never quite patient enough.
    Disagree.

    You have to trade value to get value. If you wait until half of these guys flame out, they have no trade value. See Homer Bailey as an example. You have to trust your scouts to be able to identify which guys you should trade and which you should keep, before it becomes blatantly obvious. The Marlins have great scouts, and that's why they've been able to do what they have.

    Between Frazier, Francisco, Alonso, Heisey, and Stubbs, you may have one All-Star, one regular starter (maybe two), and three reserves. Waiting for all these guys to flourish at the same time is a fruitless exercise. Plus, they have Rolen for three years. If they can't win in that window, they never were going to win with this group.
    Go BLUE!!!

  8. #142
    Brett William Moore Will M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Crescent Springs KY
    Posts
    3,627

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Quote Originally Posted by Benihana View Post
    Disagree.

    You have to trade value to get value. If you wait until half of these guys flame out, they have no trade value. See Homer Bailey as an example. You have to trust your scouts to be able to identify which guys you should trade and which you should keep, before it becomes blatantly obvious. The Marlins have great scouts, and that's why they've been able to do what they have.

    Between Frazier, Francisco, Alonso, Heisey, and Stubbs, you may have one All-Star, one regular starter (maybe two), and three reserves. Waiting for all these guys to flourish at the same time is a fruitless exercise. Plus, they have Rolen for three years. If they can't win in that window, they never were going to win with this group.
    people tend to think every prospect who does well in AA will carry that success to the bigs. instead the majority do not. its the old adage 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'.

    i doubt scouts cost all that much compared to major league salaries & signing bonuses. if i owned a team i'd have a on who to vast army of scouts blanketing the globe. i'd get good ones. then i'd trust them on who to draft/sign, who to keep, who to trade & who to acquire from other teams.

    you are 100% right about having to 'sell high'. Heisey's 0-7 in the bigs so far. I susppect that even this teenie sample size has already hurt his trade value.

    who to keep:
    - guys your scouts say are 'can't miss'. IMO the only player in the Reds minor leagues who fits this description is Chapman.
    - guys who project as role players & have minimal trade value. sometimes they do suprise but most of these guys are bench players & middle relievers. think of guys like Hanigan, Rosales, Sutton, Dickerson, Maloney, LeCure, Fisher. by all means throw them in on a deal if someone wants them but usually they have minimal trade value

    who to sell to help the major league club:
    - top prospects that your scouts don't label as can't miss. if you can fill a need now you pull the trigger. sure the prospect may turn into a solid player but you usually have to trade something to get something. Would I trade Travis Wood or Todd Frazier for a bucket of baseballs? no. Would i trade them for an everyday left fielder if I thought it was the difference between making the postseason or not? yes.
    .

  9. #143
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    9,891

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Quote Originally Posted by Will M View Post
    people tend to think every prospect who does well in AA will carry that success to the bigs. instead the majority do not. its the old adage 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'.

    i doubt scouts cost all that much compared to major league salaries & signing bonuses. if i owned a team i'd have a on who to vast army of scouts blanketing the globe. i'd get good ones. then i'd trust them on who to draft/sign, who to keep, who to trade & who to acquire from other teams.

    you are 100% right about having to 'sell high'. Heisey's 0-7 in the bigs so far. I susppect that even this teenie sample size has already hurt his trade value.

    who to keep:
    - guys your scouts say are 'can't miss'. IMO the only player in the Reds minor leagues who fits this description is Chapman.
    - guys who project as role players & have minimal trade value. sometimes they do suprise but most of these guys are bench players & middle relievers. think of guys like Hanigan, Rosales, Sutton, Dickerson, Maloney, LeCure, Fisher. by all means throw them in on a deal if someone wants them but usually they have minimal trade value

    who to sell to help the major league club:
    - top prospects that your scouts don't label as can't miss. if you can fill a need now you pull the trigger. sure the prospect may turn into a solid player but you usually have to trade something to get something. Would I trade Travis Wood or Todd Frazier for a bucket of baseballs? no. Would i trade them for an everyday left fielder if I thought it was the difference between making the postseason or not? yes.
    Exactly. What boggles my mind is the number of posters on here that talk about drafting the BPA regardless of position because you can always trade such a player, yet they still want to hoard every prospect that's worth a dime.

    It is not as easy to deal prospects for proven players as many people on this board seem to think. If it were, I have to believe that Walt would have converted Frazier, Alonso and several others who are seemingly blocked at the major league level into useful parts at this point. If these guys have such great value, and the Reds are truly going for it in 2010/2011, then why wouldn't they have been shipped out for a useful LF, C, or P at this point?

    The answer is either that these two guys don't have a whole lot of value to other clubs, or that it is very difficult to find an opportunity to trade prospects for above average everyday players.

    Putting all of this information together leads to the conclusion that if you have a prospect who has a lot of value but serious question marks (like whether or not he can be a starting pitcher in the major leagues), that same prospect is seemingly low on the organizational depth chart, and you have the opportunity to convert that prospect into an everyday, above average player at the major league level- you do it. Every. Single. Time.
    Go BLUE!!!

  10. #144
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,868

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Quote Originally Posted by Benihana View Post
    Exactly. What boggles my mind is the number of posters on here that talk about drafting the BPA regardless of position because you can always trade such a player, yet they still want to hoard every prospect that's worth a dime.

    It is not as easy to deal prospects for proven players as many people on this board seem to think. If it were, I have to believe that Walt would have converted Frazier, Alonso and several others who are seemingly blocked at the major league level into useful parts at this point. If these guys have such great value, and the Reds are truly going for it in 2010/2011, then why wouldn't they have been shipped out for a useful LF, C, or P at this point?

    The answer is either that these two guys don't have a whole lot of value to other clubs, or that it is very difficult to find an opportunity to trade prospects for above average everyday players.

    Putting all of this information together leads to the conclusion that if you have a prospect who has a lot of value but serious question marks (like whether or not he can be a starting pitcher in the major leagues), that same prospect is seemingly low on the organizational depth chart, and you have the opportunity to convert that prospect into an everyday, above average player at the major league level- you do it. Every. Single. Time.
    I think the answer that you are overlooking is that trading prospects for proven players involves taking on salary. This team may have had opportunities. Seeing some deals that have gone down would suggest that it can be done if your willing to take on the bucks and the Reds could have easily put together a package that compares. So far the Reds have not been willing with the exception of Rolen. That is my biggest gripe about dealing Stewart. It seems like there were others he could have been dealt for. He was considered a prize pitching prospect rather than a throw in like a Maloney or Lecure would be considered and those prize guys are usually main ingredients in any deal. At the time he was the only one they had and I simply would have dealt him in a deal for something different (Cliff Lee would have been a better target and the Reds could have easily matched that package that Philly gave Cleveland).

    Dealing Stewart for Rolen was like firing your only bullet at the angry farmer with the shotgun when the deadly gunslinger is also in your sights. Sure it improves your odds to take out the farmer, but leaves you nothing to address the real problem of the Gunslinger who is after you.
    "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

  11. #145
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,606

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Quote Originally Posted by puca View Post
    There is no such thing as a pitching prospect
    which, by the way, is crap.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  12. #146
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Shelburne Falls, MA
    Posts
    10,175

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Again on 4 days rest, Stewart starts and goes only 3 innings, giving up 2 ER on 4 hits and 3 BB. Of the 4 hits, there was 1 HR and 1 2B.

    In 6 starts and 26 innings, his ERA stands at 6.84, with a WHIP of around 1.7 and 6 HRs allowed. 18:14 K/BB. Scuffling.
    "Baseball is a very, very complex business. It's more of a people business than most businesses." - Bob Castellini

  13. #147
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,298

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Quote Originally Posted by lollipopcurve View Post
    Again on 4 days rest, Stewart starts and goes only 3 innings, giving up 2 ER on 4 hits and 3 BB. Of the 4 hits, there was 1 HR and 1 2B.

    In 6 starts and 26 innings, his ERA stands at 6.84, with a WHIP of around 1.7 and 6 HRs allowed. 18:14 K/BB. Scuffling.
    Yeah, he's definitely having a rough go of it. Interesting.

  14. #148
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    127

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    I wonder if there is some different coaching philosophy in the Toronto system that can possibly explain Stewart's poor performance so far?

  15. #149
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,298

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Quote Originally Posted by JKam View Post
    I wonder if there is some different coaching philosophy in the Toronto system that can possibly explain Stewart's poor performance so far?
    I think popular belief was that they would do better with him.

  16. #150
    Member Tom Servo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    7,604

    Re: Zach Stewart's progress

    Quote Originally Posted by lollipopcurve View Post
    Again on 4 days rest, Stewart starts and goes only 3 innings, giving up 2 ER on 4 hits and 3 BB. Of the 4 hits, there was 1 HR and 1 2B.

    In 6 starts and 26 innings, his ERA stands at 6.84, with a WHIP of around 1.7 and 6 HRs allowed. 18:14 K/BB. Scuffling.
    So he hasn't won a Cy Young yet?
    "Since I've been with the Reds in 1989, we've never had a farm system this loaded," Bowden said. "If we were the New York Yankees and had unlimited dollars, we could have traded for Colon, (Jeff) Weaver, Rolen, (Cliff) Floyd, (Kenny) Rogers and Finley and gotten them all -- and still held onto our top five prospects. That's an amazing statement."


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