Cingrani is our best pitching prospect IMO

[dougdirt]

Alfred from Batman loves to say it to Bruce Wayne, and I don't recall him being wrong all that often.

Fictional character.

[bubbachunk]

Way to take this thread in a terrible direction, gents. Try again.

Here's the deal: Doug (and many others) have disrespected Cingrani with their misguided rankings. If anyone thinks Kyle Lotzkar is a better prospect than Tony Cingrani, I will be happy to explain the sport of baseball to them.

Holy moly why are you trolling so hard?

[Scrap Irony]

The only people who say I told you so are people who aren't right that often.

... And those that have an intractable opponent who often acts like he's never done or said anything wrong in his life and wouldn't say he's wrong for all the tea in China.

[Patrick Bateman]

I think someone who is really knowledgeable about prospects undertands that there is a lot of guesswork, and each prospect is different. Some stats can be misleading, some aren't. One guy may look better from a scouting perspective, but may not have the work ethic, proper coaching, or mental fortitude to develop properly. There are just so many factors.

In total, because there is so much guesswork, I think each of Lotzkar, Corcino, Stephenson, and Cingrani have the various qualities (and flaws) that any of them could be reasonably argued to be the Reds top pitching propsect. In the end, perhaps only one of those guys becomes a valuable major league pitcher. I can tell you that each one of them is capable of doing such, but which one will do it? I have little idea, and quite frankly, I don't think anyone else here really does either.

In total, I think this whole approach of deciding who is infintely the best pitching prospect in the system is completely flawed. Everyone who is taking such a hard line stance is wrong for doing so. Everyone here has been so wrong on various pitchers, that I don't get how anyone can have the sense of entitlement that is being displayed through each post.

I'm just saying, there should be room in our opinions in relation to prospects to recognize that each of these guys are not finished products, and as such, it should be recognized that there is no definitive answer, just a "best guess approach".

[Scrap Irony]

I think someone who is really knowledgeable about prospects undertands that there is a lot of guesswork, and each prospect is different. Some stats can be misleading, some aren't. One guy may look better from a scouting perspective, but may not have the work ethic, proper coaching, or mental fortitude to develop properly. There are just so many factors.

In total, because there is so much guesswork, I think each of Lotzkar, Corcino, Stephenson, and Cingrani have the various qualities (and flaws) that any of them could be reasonably argued to be the Reds top pitching propsect. In the end, perhaps only one of those guys becomes a valuable major league pitcher. I can tell you that each one of them is capable of doing such, but which one will do it? I have little idea, and quite frankly, I don't think anyone else here really does either.

In total, I think this whole approach of deciding who is infintely the best pitching prospect in the system is completely flawed. Everyone who is taking such a hard line stance is wrong for doing so. Everyone here has been so wrong on various pitchers, that I don't get how anyone can have the sense of entitlement that is being displayed through each post.

I'm just saying, there should be room in our opinions in relation to prospects to recognize that each of these guys are not finished products, and as such, it should be recognized that there is no definitive answer, just a "best guess approach".

Well-said.

It's all guesswork, and not one of us is any better at predicting who's better than any other. We're all amateur GMs and scouting directors looking at the pieces to try and find the whole.

[camisadelgolf]

Fictional character.

Let me guess--you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy either? I think it's time you grow up and accept things for what they really are, Doug.

[Blitz Dorsey]

I think someone who is really knowledgeable about prospects undertands that there is a lot of guesswork, and each prospect is different. Some stats can be misleading, some aren't. One guy may look better from a scouting perspective, but may not have the work ethic, proper coaching, or mental fortitude to develop properly. There are just so many factors.

In total, because there is so much guesswork, I think each of Lotzkar, Corcino, Stephenson, and Cingrani have the various qualities (and flaws) that any of them could be reasonably argued to be the Reds top pitching propsect. In the end, perhaps only one of those guys becomes a valuable major league pitcher. I can tell you that each one of them is capable of doing such, but which one will do it? I have little idea, and quite frankly, I don't think anyone else here really does either.

In total, I think this whole approach of deciding who is infintely the best pitching prospect in the system is completely flawed. Everyone who is taking such a hard line stance is wrong for doing so. Everyone here has been so wrong on various pitchers, that I don't get how anyone can have the sense of entitlement that is being displayed through each post.

I'm just saying, there should be room in our opinions in relation to prospects to recognize that each of these guys are not finished products, and as such, it should be recognized that there is no definitive answer, just a "best guess approach".

This type of reasonable, well-thought-out post has no business here. Please take your trash elsewhere, sir.

[sarcasm off]

Great post.

[Blitz Dorsey]

I was careful to put "IMO" in the thread title. I can see the argument for Corcino being the best. Maybe even Stephenson as we get more and more info (lookin' good so far). But when Doug is adamant that Lotzkar is better and won't back down, I do tend to be a bit aggressive in my arguments. However, that's the only way to get Doug to admit he's wrong. Wait, he's never wrong! Haha.

Seriously Doug, have you ever admitted to being wrong on RedsZone? Not even being sarcastic. Serious question.

[dougdirt]

Plenty of times.

[Vottomatic]

Plenty of times.

I remember the last one back in 2006.

Just trying to lighten the mood up.

[RedlegJake]

Doug, you can be a bit intractable. But you know, I haven't met anyone with an opinion that mattered that wasn't a bit like that. When I don;t agree with Doug I know I will be called upon to defend my position and I best not be BSing. Best kind of guy to discuss things with. Besides, Blitz - when did you become the crown prince of reasonableness? LOL. Jerking both your chains...

[Vottomatic]

In 3 years I have 4800 posts. In 6 years, Doug has 26,000 posts. I need to up my number of posts a day to catch up!

Not that there's anything wrong with that.........

[dougdirt]

12 of those 26,000 were even good ones.

[RedlegJake]

In 7 years I have 3300 posts. Compared to you guys I took an oath of silence or something...

[Superdude]

The silver lining of this whole argument is the fact that the word intractable was used twice in one page. We're gettin' so smart here at RedsZone.