Cingrani is our best pitching prospect IMO

[M2]

Side question, where does a guy who lauded Juan Francisco and Elizardo Ramirez on their way up get off using them as examples of why folks should be dubious about Cingrani?

[dougdirt]

"Lauded them". Sure, in very weak Reds systems Francisco lauded, to the extent that he never ranked higher than #5. Elizardo Ramirez was never a prospect when I was creating prospect lists. But hey, lets just keep talking about stuff from 2004, since that is obviously how you get off.

If you don't have something of value to add to the conversation, then don't get into it. Your petty reply isn't needed. I am sure if I wanted to be cool like you I could search around for something you said about a player and toss it back at you. But I don't care much about that. We have all said incorrect things before. I am not the type of person to bring them back up to try and put them in someone's face. You apparently are. Big tough guy I bet.

[kearns and dunn]

Zach Steward is still waiting on his Cy Young.






/I had to do it.
//I'm enjoying the squabble between all of you grown "men".

[powersackers]

Someone please answer me this:
A MLB SP Prospect must have X, else RP. X=?

Asking because "scouts" and some on here still think he may be a RP despite statisical performance at high A and now AA that is obviously showing Cingrani to be a sucessful SP.

[dougdirt]

Someone please answer me this:
A MLB SP Prospect must have X, else RP. X=?

Asking because "scouts" and some on here still think he may be a RP despite statisical performance at high A and now AA that is obviously showing Cingrani to be a sucessful SP.

A starting pitcher generally needs 3 pitches. Relievers generally can get away with just 2.

[Patrick Bateman]

"Lauded them". Sure, in very weak Reds systems Francisco lauded, to the extent that he never ranked higher than #5. Elizardo Ramirez was never a prospect when I was creating prospect lists. But hey, lets just keep talking about stuff from 2004, since that is obviously how you get off.

If you don't have something of value to add to the conversation, then don't get into it. Your petty reply isn't needed. I am sure if I wanted to be cool like you I could search around for something you said about a player and toss it back at you. But I don't care much about that. We have all said incorrect things before. I am not the type of person to bring them back up to try and put them in someone's face. You apparently are. Big tough guy I bet.

Well I don't think the sense of entitlement helps your case.

Just because you have seen much of these guys does not make you any more viable in terms of evaluating these guys. For all we know, you could be the world's worst scout. M2's examples I think show that scouting in the past has led to just as many "incorrect conclusions" as anyone here. It's fine to help craft your arguments based on what you have seen, but you can't throw everything Blitz has to say simply because you have seen Cingrani pitch more.

[dougdirt]

Well I don't think the sense of entitlement helps your case.

Just because you have seen much of these guys does not make you any more viable in terms of evaluating these guys. For all we know, you could be the world's worst scout. M2's examples I think show that scouting in the past has led to just as many "incorrect conclusions" as anyone here. It's fine to help craft your arguments based on what you have seen, but you can't throw everything Blitz has to say simply because you have seen Cingrani pitch more.

I am not throwing what he has to say out. Cingrani has incredible stats. Not arguing that at all. Simply that good stats in the minors don't always just translate to the Majors. Then I backed that up with why, based on things I (and others) have seen.

[M2]

From today's BA Hot Sheet, on Cingrani: "He went eight shutout innings while striking out 15 and allowing three hits and a walk, a performance that added up to the best game score (90) we've seen this year in the minors. It's yet another reminder that the pre-draft scouting report that pegged Cingrani as a future reliever may have been a little light."

[fearofpopvol1]

I like Cingrani a lot, but I'm not sure I'd put him ahead of Corcino at this juncture, as Corcino is younger. Corcino looks very similar to Cueto. He may not ever become Cueto, but if he's in the same neighborhood, that's a very valuable guy to have on your club.

[lollipopcurve]

Simply that good stats in the minors don't always just translate to the Majors.

This is very true. It wasn't so long ago that some thought Calvin Medlock was the best starting pitching prospect in the system and Carlos Guevara was a can't miss reliever. Everybody misfires on prospects.

[Blitz Dorsey]

For sure I think more attention needs to be paid to what he's doing right. Also, some credit ought to go to the Reds development folks for cranking what he does up to 11 so far.

Here's my question about all Reds pitching prospects: can anyone name one that doesn't have some serious work to do before he's ready to deal in the majors?

That's a great question. For everyone that ranks Corcino ahead of Cingrani, are you suggesting that Corcino doesn't need to improve greatly on his command? Also, Corcino has a good fastball, but not one that blows hitters away by any means. His K rate is good in the minors. I bet his K rate will be average in MLB.

So, who are all these "finished product" (or close) pitching prospects we have? Exactly. We don't have any. All of them have work to do. Right now, I think Cingrani will be the best of the current excellent trio in Pensacola (Cingrani, Corcino, Lotzkar). Happy to have all three of them though.

Also, it's too early to tell on Robert Stephenson, but I'm very excited by the early results (and from all the comments in general about him from Goodyear during EST). He could be the Reds' best pitching prospect for all we know. But of all the guys that have pitched at least a full year of pro ball in the Reds' organization, Cingrani is my No. 1 prospect. I'd rank him as the Reds' No. 2 overall prospect behind the obvious No. 1, William Hamilton, aka "Slidin' Billy."

And it's waaaaaaay too early to tell about Travieso. I like the pick though (after being skeptical at first).

[Benihana]

I like Cingrani a lot, but I'm not sure I'd put him ahead of Corcino at this juncture, as Corcino is younger. Corcino looks very similar to Cueto. He may not ever become Cueto, but if he's in the same neighborhood, that's a very valuable guy to have on your club.

This pretty much sums up how I feel as well.

I see too much Cueto in Corcino to rank another pitcher in the system ahead of him at this point. Cingrani is certainly close, and Stephenson and even Lotzkar (on his good days) aren't all that far behind. Right now that's how they line up for me. Looking forward to Travieso making his debut and joining these four to round out the top five pitching prospects in the organization.

[M2]

Doug, hopefully you've changed into a fresh pair of pants by now. I honestly don't know if you've come around in your thinking to where you're not constantly over-valuing guys like Francisco and Ramirez (happened to run across some old posts on the Lizard because of an old thread that got dredged up on ORG, and you were highly complimentary of Ramirez back in the day). That was your M.O., thus what I'm guessing have become the endless references to Zach Stewart.

And that's fine, but for those of us with anything like, you know, a basic memory it's a bit jarring to see you throwing guys you praised out as examples of players who got undone by glaring, fatal flaws. Like I said, maybe you've learned from those days. I certainly don't frequent the board that often and I stuck you on ignore years ago. Maybe your position these days is "I used to get way overhyped about guys like this and now I know that you've got to be more skeptical." Haven't seen that in this thread, but if it's the case then that's a fair argument.

However, if it's "People like me who know what to look for see the problems with Cingrani just like with these others guys (some of whom I completely whiffed on)," then I'm not inclined to buy into your appeal as an authority. I'm not going to take your word for it, especially when you just reminded me of specific examples where your judgment has been shaky. I didn't pick that list of names. You did.

Main thing is I came into this thread because I've become genuinely excited about Cingrani and thought it might be nice to read some more about the kid (even cracked open some of your posts). To my surprise you're the guy who seems to be the least impressed with him. Maybe it's the whole "best pitching prospect" framework of the thread which is upending some delicately ordered balance of things you have constructed inside your head. I could care less about "best" designations. Those sort of things are fluid.

Cingrani's doing really well. He merits enthusiasm. I don't know what he's ultimately going to be, but he's definitely been more than anyone expected so far. Good for him. Good for the Reds. Good for us.

[Blitz Dorsey]

The Cueto-Corcino comparisons are borderline hilarious. I sure hope you guys are right though. Another Johnny Cueto? Sign me up for that. However, I think it's naive to assume Corcino will be even close to as good as the current ace of the Reds' staff.

Might some fans draw the "Corcino is the next Cueto" conclusion simply because they're similarly built and from the same country? Corcino is 5-11, 205 ... Cueto is 5-10, 220. (And I bet Cueto was right at 205 when he was 21/22 years old.)

I would love to see Corcino develop into a pitcher that's almost as good as Cueto. That's asking for a lot though. I think people see two Dominicans who look alike and even have last names that sound somewhat alike and just assume that Corcino is going to follow in Cueto's footsteps.

And I don't want to seem as if I'm criticizing Corcino. Thrilled he's a Reds' prospect. He's definitely one of the top pitching prospects in all of baseball. It's just Johnny Cueto is pitching at an All-Star level in MLB. Chances are good we won't see another Cueto come along for a while. You can't teach the kind of "moxie" he has on the mound. Usually I hate that word, but it describes Cueto to a T.

[Benihana]

The Cueto-Corcino comparisons are borderline hilarious. I sure hope you guys are right though. Another Johnny Cueto? Sign me up for that. However, I think it's naive to assume Corcino will be even close to as good as the current ace of the Reds' staff.

Might some fans draw the "Corcino is the next Cueto" conclusion simply because they're similarly built and from the same country? Corcino is 5-11, 205 ... Cueto is 5-10, 220. (And I bet Cueto was right at 205 when he was 21/22 years old.)

I would love to see Corcino develop into a pitcher that's almost as good as Cueto. That's asking for a lot though. I think people see two Dominicans who look alike and even have last names that sound somewhat alike and just assume that Corcino is going to follow in Cueto's footsteps.

And I don't want to seem as if I'm criticizing Corcino. Thrilled he's a Reds' prospect. He's definitely one of the top pitching prospects in all of baseball. It's just Johnny Cueto is pitching at an All-Star level in MLB. Chances are good we won't see another Cueto come along for a while. You can't teach the kind of "moxie" he has on the mound. Usually I hate that word, but it describes Cueto to a T.

Their numbers are quite similar to this point as well. Look at Cueto's 20 and 21 year old seasons, then look at Corcino's. Cueto's numbers are slightly better, but they are pretty similar.