Alex Gordon, or yet another reason why people need to stop overvaluing prospects

[OnBaseMachine]

I would love to see the Reds put together a package for DeJesus and Gordon. I still think Gordon has a chance to be a good major leaguer.

[REDblooded]

You could also title this thread "Alex Gordon: another example of potential derailed by injuries"...

And yes... Prospects are a risk... That being said, you'd be far fetched to find a single player in the World Series or All Star games this season that didn't start their career as a prospect...

[Caveat Emperor]

The Reds need to be willing to flip young players for talent when the opportunity arises -- but I think they've shown they're not afraid to do that (see: Stewart for Rolen).

The inescapable reality of baseball is that a team like the Reds NEEDS heavy contributions from home-grown talent if they're going to succeed. You can add a couple players who are proven major league talents, but eventually the payroll stretches to maximum.

[Topcat]

Gordon will be fine all he needs is to get out of KC.

[Patrick Bateman]

Both Balentien and Gordon's OPS are significantly higher than Stubbs, Frazier, Francisco and Alonso, and yet people on this board absolutely refuse to trade these types of players for anything short of Albert Pujols.

You know, using the same logic, you would have probably traded Albert Pujols for Mike Lowell or something when the Cards were desperate enough to hand the reigns to Pujols at 3rd base after no high minors experience.

Yes, some prospects do fail, we already knew that. Should there also be a thread that says: "Evan Longoria, or yet another reason why people need to start valuing prospects."

Well no. Because some fail, some suceed. You never go out and actively decide that your going to be keeping all prospects or trading them all at any cost. Everyone has their price, but if the point is that getting any decent major league starter for a prospect will help you become a mediocre team, but at the same time, it's going to be difficult to ever become a sucessful franchise if you don't get productive seasons out of cheap commodities, or get the upside associated with gambling on a young prospect.

[Benihana]

The Reds need to be willing to flip young players for talent when the opportunity arises -- but I think they've shown they're not afraid to do that (see: Stewart for Rolen).

The inescapable reality of baseball is that a team like the Reds NEEDS heavy contributions from home-grown talent if they're going to succeed. You can add a couple players who are proven major league talents, but eventually the payroll stretches to maximum.

Of course this second part is true. But when the Reds have redundant prospects at the same position, they really need to work hard to figure out who is their horse and who they should trade.

Stubbs and Heisey are/were completely redundant. You could add Dickerson to that group as well.
Frazier, Francisco, and most likely Alonso are all competing for the same position with the major league team, and are therefore redundant.

In both of these cases, the Reds need(ed) to pick the guy they really believe will be the solution, and trade one or more of the others to try to plug other holes. Of course they could pick the wrong guy and flop. They could also pick the right guy (Larkin) and hit a home run while selling high on a bust (Stillwell) to supplement other needs (Danny Jackson for the rotation.) Probably most likely they'll pick someone in between (Casey/Boone), trade someone decent (Konerko), but get a much-needed upgrade in the process (Mike Cameron in CF.) Regardless, the only way to sure-fire fail to be great is to let them all play it out, let one guy emerge as mildly successful while the others turn into wilted flowers, and get no other upgrades in the process.

Think about it: Stewart for Rolen, Waring and Turner for Hernandez, Pena for Arroyo. In those cases, the Reds picked their horse- Wood over Stewart, Soto and Valaika over Waring and Turner, Dunn/Kearns over Pena, and cashed in the others for value. As another person pointed out, you can't always do this if the veteran costs a lot of money, but there are other players available that don't always cost a lot of money. Danny Jackson and Mike Cameron were examples of this. David DeJesus is probably another one. Finally, you can usually throw in a redundant, expensive veteran to help balance out the costs. The Reds did this in 2 of the 3 trades listed above (EE for Rolen, Freel for Hernandez). Anyway, I'd just like to see more of this type of behavior encouraged, especially on this board.

[Benihana]

You know, using the same logic, you would have probably traded Albert Pujols for Mike Lowell or something when the Cards were desperate enough to hand the reigns to Pujols at 3rd base after no high minors experience.

If you're not willing to trade a 12th round draft pick with no experience above A ball for an All-Star 3B at the major league level, you fail as a GM. Please don't use the 1 in 1,000,000,000 exception as an example.

Yes, some prospects do fail, we already knew that. Should there also be a thread that says: "Evan Longoria, or yet another reason why people need to start valuing prospects."

Well no. Because some fail, some suceed. You never go out and actively decide that your going to be keeping all prospects or trading them all at any cost. Everyone has their price, but if the point is that getting any decent major league starter for a prospect will help you become a mediocre team, but at the same time, it's going to be difficult to ever become a sucessful franchise if you don't get productive seasons out of cheap commodities, or get the upside associated with gambling on a young prospect.

I never said they should trade Jay Bruce, not now or in 2008. Bruce had no equal in the organization, and he was emerging at a position where there was going to be a clear need. If you truly believe a guy is a can't-miss prospect, you keep him. Especially when he plays a position where you don't have a long-term built-in solution.

Can you tell me if Alonso, Francisco, Frazier, Stubbs, Heisey, et al fit this description? Jay Bruce did. Evan Longoria did. These guys do not.

Of course you can still be wrong about a "can't-miss" guy, but don't dupe yourself into thinking some guys fit the bill, when even the most optimistic person in the organization would admit that they do not.

In summary, you can, and should, consider trading a prospect for a major league upgrade if:
1. They are not "can't-miss", or they have warts that are concerning.
2. They have other similarly rated prospects around the same level that play the same position.
3. There is not a clear, long-term need at their position that is unlikely to be filled by anyone else within the organization.
4. The major league team has even a remote chance of contending in the near future.

Jay Bruce did not fit into this category. Neither does Aroldis Chapman. But can you name a single other prospect in the Reds organization that doesn't fit that criteria?

[Big Klu]

Dave Revering was my lesson

It was Paul Householder for me.

[jojo]

To me it's pretty simple. If the Royals are giving away Gordons, you snap Gordons up until your org is downgraded by stashing Gordons.

[flyer85]

Phillips is a player the Reds grabbed after he fell out of favor, and he has nowhere near the minor league success of Gordon. I would love to see Gordon and Dejesus.

BTW, it will be interested to see how Strasburg does. He has given up 1 hit in 12 AAA innings. The Nats aren't playing bad and adding Strasburg could really change their outlook.

[Reds1]

IT is amazing how many times so few of the top prospects become great players, but then you have a guy like Leake come along and be better then anyone really expected. At least so far! It was all about Chapman and really Leake has been much better and T Woods to me might be even more ready at this point then Chapman especially being a lefty. The Nationals are proving right now though that a bunch of young prospects can make a decent little team.

[Guacarock]

A prospect who has enjoyed great success in the minor leagues can fail upon reaching the Show. But accomplished major league players can also experience wild fluctuations from one season to the next, and can suddenly go into the tank and see their skillset erode.

Take DeJesus, for instance. Has a career OBP of .357 since joining the Royals in 2003. But his OBP has dropped each of the last three seasons -- from .366 in 2008 to .347 in 2009 to .337 this season. It's declined most precipitously this month with DeJesus hitting a mediocre .167 with 1 RBI and 2 runs scored so far in May.

Is this drought at the plate an aberration, a blip, a slump or is DeJesus one of those veterans who might be past his prime and entering the twilight of his career? I'd want to watch him another month or so before banging the drum too loudly for his acquisition.

[Ghosts of 1990]

I think when talking about Alex Gordon, the Royals have ruined his confidence. Look at his rookie numbers. Looked like a guy who would develop into 25/25 and at least hit .260/.270.

A change of scenery and the guy could still really play some nice baseball IMHO. He's only going to be 27.

[flyer85]

The Reds biggest issue is that they need a leadoff hitter that gets on base. Having Cabrera and Phillips in front of Votto is not going to cut it. Dejesus at least would be likely to produce a .350 OBP, that would be a big improvement.

[Caveat Emperor]

The Reds biggest issue is that they need a leadoff hitter that gets on base. Having Cabrera and Phillips in front of Votto is not going to cut it. Dejesus at least would be likely to produce a .350 OBP, that would be a big improvement.

They just need to get on base more in general. I don't care if you're batting #1 or #9, getting on base WILL lead to increased run production.