Redszone Prospect list?

[RedsManRick]

Doug, was it you who did the top 40 list recently? Perhaps a link to that blog at the top of the thread would give people a place to start. Or alternately, we (you) could simply compile a "guys to consider" list by position and level.

[dougdirt]

Several posters have done top 30 and 40 prospects recently. I think the guys to consider will work itself out once we get past the top 4 prospects and people start making nominations and giving their reasons why they think they should be places.

[texasdave]

Here's an idea. Every day a thread is started about a prospect. Everyone can contribute their thoughts on this guy - pro or con. The following day, after mulling things over everyone votes on that prospect, perhaps on a scale of 1 to 10. If you take two days per prospect that will allow everyone to discuss and vote on about 45 prospects before the start of spring training. You could speed up the process, after the first day, by having everyone vote on prospect a while in a separate thread discussing prospect b. This would effectively allow about 90 prospects to be discussed/voted upon before spring training.

[TOBTTReds]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

The only reason I don't like that idea as much, as it wont spark any conversation or insight that others have on players that some of the rest of us might not have or know. Say we get to #8 and someone wants to vote Player X while the majority of us are going with player C, they would make their argument for player X and maybe it gives us all something that we never thought about before with that player or maybe some new information we didnt have on that player.

I agree. Plus the polls for each slot pro-longs the process, and this is something that should keep us busy for a while.

[dougdirt]

OK guys, I am going to give it a shot and put up a poll for #1.

[Mario-Rijo]

Ok I know what you mean now, I recall last years. Which does bring me to my next point.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by mth123

I'm for it, but the list of candidates needs to be pretty long. Many have differing ideas of where guys should end up. When you get down to number 5, the ceiling faction will want Stubbs and Frazier while the guys who give more credance to likeliness to contribute may want Roenicke or Rosales.

This is the thing in a nutshell too me, what is it we are shooting for here? The top 40 with the most and perhaps best potential, I.E. Ceiling guys? The Top 40 who are actually the most likely to contribute regardless of how little that may be, I.E. Contribute guys? Top 40 guys who have the most value both on the field or in a deal? Or does that even matter, because it seems after approximately 4-8 guys things will become confusing as to whom is truly the best prospect. I think it helps to have a goal in mind, so it's a truer set of rankings.

Does anyone follow me here? I myself would like to see it be a value based approach. Because let's say for example you have Dunn, Hamilton and Bruce entrenched in the OF for the next 5 yrs. Then what does that do to Drew Stubbs' ranking that through no real fault of his own (assuming he pans out the way we'd all hope for) he is stuck in AAA in say '10 because they wanna keep him playing everyday and he cannot do it at this level?

If he has a true value # then he isn't hurt by things he cannot control or more for this exercise things that he may potentially not be able to control. I mean does the idea that he could potentially get stuck in a position like that lower his perceived value now?

[camisadelgolf]

I think it's okay if we all have our own ranking systems. Some people put more emphasis on ceiling while others put more emphasis on the likelihood of a player reaching his potential. In the long run, I think it will all balance out.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

This is the thing in a nutshell too me, what is it we are shooting for here? The top 40 with the most and perhaps best potential, I.E. Ceiling guys? The Top 40 who are actually the most likely to contribute regardless of how little that may be, I.E. Contribute guys? Top 40 guys who have the most value both on the field or in a deal? Or does that even matter, because it seems after approximately 4-8 guys things will become confusing as to whom is truly the best prospect. I think it helps to have a goal in mind, so it's a truer set of rankings.

Does anyone follow me here? I myself would like to see it be a value based approach. Because let's say for example you have Dunn, Hamilton and Bruce entrenched in the OF for the next 5 yrs. Then what does that do to Drew Stubbs' ranking that through no real fault of his own (assuming he pans out the way we'd all hope for) he is stuck in AAA in say '10 because they wanna keep him playing everyday and he cannot do it at this level?

If he has a true value # then he isn't hurt by things he cannot control or more for this exercise things that he may potentially not be able to control. I mean does the idea that he could potentially get stuck in a position like that lower his perceived value now?

Its all about how you want to look at prospects. Some people look at cielings only, others look at closeness to the majors mixed in with cielings, others look at performance for the most part.... its all up to the voter as to who they think goes where. There are tons of differing views on who to evaluate prospects, just go with the one you think is the best one to you.

[RedsManRick]

Would you rather have:

40% shot at a decent middle reliever, 40% shot at fringe reliever, and 20% shot at bust

or

10% shot at a plus CF, 20% at decent CF, 20% a fringe CF, and 50% bust

I'm not sure how the heck I'd answer that question.

In my mind, the easiest way to "do the math" is to do the following; ignore the needs of the 25 man roster and the various strengths and weaknesses of the organization and then answer the question: Which guy would would I rather have in my system if I was drafting from scratch? Or alternately, would I trade player A for player B?

Answering that question allows you go with a gut feeling which in reality synthesizes all the various factors in way that is very difficult to do consciously.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

10% shot at a plus CF, 20% at decent CF, 20% a fringe CF, and 40% bust

What happens to the last 10%? Or was there some weird rounding off going on?

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

What happens to the last 10%? Or was there some weird rounding off going on?

[mth123]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Would you rather have:

40% shot at a decent middle reliever, 40% shot at fringe reliever, and 20% shot at bust

or

10% shot at a plus CF, 20% at decent CF, 20% a fringe CF, and 50% bust

I'm not sure how the heck I'd answer that question.

In my mind, the easiest way to "do the math" is to do the following; ignore the needs of the 25 man roster and the various strengths and weaknesses of the organization and then answer the question: Which guy would would I rather have in my system if I was drafting from scratch? Or alternately, would I trade player A for player B?

Answering that question allows you go with a gut feeling which in reality synthesizes all the various factors in way that is very difficult to do consciously.

I like the reliever of these two. I'd guess the ones who like the CF probably think the "Plus" % is higher.