Reds won't draft for big-league needs --MLB.com Mark Sheldon 5/30/07

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Doc. Scott

No one should ever draft "for big-league need" except in rare cases where a player might reach the big leagues within one year or something.

You take the best player available 99% of the time. That's what trading is for. The higher your overall talent level, the easier it will be to get what you need later.

Agreed, but I think the need of an organization on the whole and not a major league need is what should be looked at. For example, the Reds do not need an OFer, unless they are clearly the player to take. With Hamilton, Stubbs, Dunn and Bruce in the organization, I'd rather see them go for another position if that player is a viable pick.

[oneupper]

Originally Posted by Doc. Scott

No one should ever draft "for big-league need" except in rare cases where a player might reach the big leagues within one year or something.

You take the best player available 99% of the time. That's what trading is for. The higher your overall talent level, the easier it will be to get what you need later.

True. But we need to get some catchers SOMEWHERE.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Agreed, but I think the need of an organization on the whole and not a major league need is what should be looked at. For example, the Reds do not need an OFer, unless they are clearly the player to take. With Hamilton, Stubbs, Dunn and Bruce in the organization, I'd rather see them go for another position if that player is a viable pick.

Problem is, Dunn might have priced himself out of town by the time a 2007 draft pick is ready to play, Hamilton will always be a relapse risk, and there is no guarantee that Bruce/Stubbs will pan out. It is highly unlikely that all four of those guys will be productive and in Cincinnati when 2010/2011 rolls around.

Mind you, I'm not advocating taking an OF, but the development path of MLB draftees is so damn long and filled with potholes that you can't take anything for granted.

[LoganBuck]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Agreed, but I think the need of an organization on the whole and not a major league need is what should be looked at. For example, the Reds do not need an OFer, unless they are clearly the player to take. With Hamilton, Stubbs, Dunn and Bruce in the organization, I'd rather see them go for another position if that player is a viable pick.

Agreed. I would like to see an impact bat like LaPorta number 1. I like Detwiller too. Ahrens is supposedly on the rise, and if he truely is a Chipper Jones type, then why not? Max Sherzer would be a nice sandwich pick. I don't want any part of Andrew Brackman. He looks too much like those other trees that start falling apart at his age.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

Problem is, Dunn might have priced himself out of town by the time a 2007 draft pick is ready to play, Hamilton will always be a relapse risk, and there is no guarantee that Bruce/Stubbs will pan out. It is highly unlikely that all four of those guys will be productive and in Cincinnati when 2010/2011 rolls around.

Mind you, I'm not advocating taking an OF, but the development path of MLB draftees is so damn long and filled with potholes that you can't take anything for granted.

Oh, I'm with you 100%. But if this team is going to refuse to spend money to get veteran talent, then it has to come from the draft. And I'd rather see this team start to plan for the future by getting some guys who will fill out the 2010 roster behind Votto, Bruce, Harang, Bailey, Hamilton, Stubbs, etc etc than guys who might just create another Dunn/Griffey/Pena/AK fiasco.

Personally, I want pitching. But if they go best player available, that guy better be a STUD if he's an outfielder.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

Problem is, Dunn might have priced himself out of town by the time a 2007 draft pick is ready to play, Hamilton will always be a relapse risk, and there is no guarantee that Bruce/Stubbs will pan out. It is highly unlikely that all four of those guys will be productive and in Cincinnati when 2010/2011 rolls around.

Mind you, I'm not advocating taking an OF, but the development path of MLB draftees is so damn long and filled with potholes that you can't take anything for granted.

If I had to lay down money today as for who would be the most productive Reds outfielder in 2011 of thoose 4 players it would be Jay Bruce without thinking twice.

I dont think Dunn will be around after this season anyways, and the other two I just don't think will be the type of player Bruce is.

[edabbs44]

The main thing I want is for Cincy to take top talent in all of their picks. They have a lot of early selections and it could get expensive. If they go cheap I will be pissed.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

If I had to lay down money today as for who would be the most productive Reds outfielder in 2011 of thoose 4 players it would be Jay Bruce without thinking twice.

I agree ... but there is always a degree of uncertainty when dealing with prospects.

* Some guys get injured (Ryan Anderson).
* Some guys are on their fourth team by the time they make the adjustement to the majors (Phil Nevin).
* Some guys never make the adjustment to the majors (Drew Henson, Sean Burroughs).
* Some guys get caught up in the party lifestyle and piss their talent away (very nearly Josh Hamilton).
* Some guys just go wonky in the head (Steve Blass, Mackey Sasser, Steve Sax, Rick Ankiel).

There is no such thing as a sure thing.

[Betterread]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

There is no such thing as a sure thing.

From drafts as recent as 2004 and 2005- Justin Verlander, Stephen Drew and Alex Gordon were sure things. It is of note that one of the three was chosen at the #15 slot.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by Betterread

From drafts as recent as 2004 and 2005- Justin Verlander, Stephen Drew and Alex Gordon were sure things. It is of note that one of the three was chosen at the #15 slot.

Last time I checked Alex Gordon was hitting 185 with a sub-600 OPS. Are you sure he is a sure thing?

Matt Bush was picked before Verlander (#1 overall) in 2004 and he is looking like a complete bust at this point. Jeff Clement was picked immediately after Gordon (#3 overall) in 2005 and he hasn't been able to hit his way out of a wet paper bag since leaving single-A.

I repeat, there is no such thing as a sure thing.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

Last time I checked Alex Gordon was hitting 185 with a sub-600 OPS. Are you sure he is a sure thing?

Matt Bush was picked before Verlander (#1 overall) in 2004 and he is looking like a complete bust at this point. Jeff Clement was picked immediately after Gordon (#3 overall) in 2005 and he hasn't been able to hit his way out of a wet paper bag since leaving single-A.

I repeat, there is no such thing as a sure thing.

Bush was in no way, shape or form a sure thing. His #1 selection has a lot to do with money.

[Doc. Scott]

Originally Posted by oneupper

True. But we need to get some catchers SOMEWHERE.

Hey, there are a hundred scrappylicious Corky Millers out there just waiting to play for $100 and a pair of spikes.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by AdamDunn

What's wrong with a HS arm? Bailey's worked out pretty well so far...

HS arms have a track record of breaking down in the minors, and not lasting in the majors if they see that level.

Bailey's in AAA. IMO, he hasn't shown us anything until he makes an impact at the MLB level.

[Aronchis]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

HS arms have a track record of breaking down in the minors, and not lasting in the majors if they see that level.

Bailey's in AAA. IMO, he hasn't shown us anything until he makes an impact at the MLB level.

So do college pitchers.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by Aronchis

So do college pitchers.

Not to the same degree.