Jim Callis Espn Chat

[princeton]

Originally Posted by Cooper

I just don't believe the Reds have a way in which they measure things to find out the optimum value of their prospects.

maybe. We'll have to see. Probably the best support of your statement is the report that we got that the Reds are highly enamored of Johnny Cueto-- to the point that it was a sticking point over trading for Haren. that's troubling. Cueto will need to become a significant player to justify the support

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by princeton

maybe. We'll have to see. Probably the best support of your statement is the report that we got that the Reds are highly enamored of Johnny Cueto-- to the point that it was a sticking point over trading for Haren. that's troubling. Cueto will need to become a significant player to justify the support

Nowhere has it said that he was the sticking point. It said that the Reds chose to keep a package including Cueto. That could mean he was the main guy or that he was a secondary guy. We don't know.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by princeton

maybe. We'll have to see. Probably the best support of your statement is the report that we got that the Reds are highly enamored of Johnny Cueto-- to the point that it was a sticking point over trading for Haren. that's troubling. Cueto will need to become a significant player to justify the support

I don't think we can treat rumors as fact. Also, even if Cueto was a sticking point in a Haren negotiation, we have no idea what the remaining parameters were of such a hypothetical deal. Given the haul that Beane got for Haren, the Reds shouldn't have topped Arizona's offer.

[Cedric]

Originally Posted by princeton

Good. BA rankings help GMs to explain their trades to the sportswriters and ultimately to the fanbase.

congratulations to the Reds. Now, trade a lot of these guys away and get better.

If Wayne=Terry Ryan than I think we have a mixed bag. Minnesota turned around their franchise by playing youngsters and also knowing when to get rid of them (AJ). Not really anything novel, hopefully Krivsky has that same knack.

Hopefully Wayne gets rid of the only flaw I saw with Terry Ryan. Refusing to take risks with position players. And that Juan Castro thing.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by Cedric

If Wayne=Terry Ryan than I think we have a mixed bag. Minnesota turned around their franchise by playing youngsters and also knowing when to get rid of them (AJ). Not really anything novel, hopefully Krivsky has that same knack.

Hopefully Wayne gets rid of the only flaw I saw with Terry Ryan. Refusing to take risks with position players. And that Juan Castro thing.

What kind of risks?

[Cedric]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

What kind of risks?

I love Terry Ryan so I'm not bashing him overall. Look at his track record though and he has at times been guilty of either holding onto field prospects too long, or not playing them soon enough. He was extra cautious with field prospects later in his career and I think that hampered the Twins at times.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by Cedric

I love Terry Ryan so I'm not bashing him overall. Look at his track record though and he has at times been guilty of either holding onto field prospects too long, or not playing them soon enough. He was extra cautious with field prospects later in his career and I think that hampered the Twins at times.

It's certainly something to be keeping on eye on. If I had to lean one way or another right now (I really don't but...), I'd say he does that.

[M2]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

2000-2001 wasn't quite where its at right now in terms of top end talent and being at AAA or higher like all of the guys are right now.

That's highly revisionist. The Reds were rated #3 heading into 2001 and will be rated #3 heading into 2008. While they may not be exactly the same, the 2008 group projects no stronger than the 2001 did on paper.

Insisting that this crop of youngsters is naturally better is just a neat way of not learning from recent history. What the Reds need to do is identify the absolute keepers and the kids who should be traded while they've got top markets. Imagine what might have happened if the JimBo regime had moved Gookie Dawkins instead of Mike Cameron. Imagine what Austin Kearns and Ty Howington might have fetched. That could have gone a long from transforming the Reds from also rans to a winning ballclub.

The Reds would be well advised to try to know now what will be known by all later. Being ranked #3 doesn't mean the future is assured, it means the club has a hand of cards to play.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by M2

That's highly revisionist. The Reds were rated #3 heading into 2001 and will be rated #3 heading into 2008. While they may not be exactly the same, the 2008 group projects no stronger than the 2001 did on paper.

Insisting that this crop of youngsters is naturally better is just a neat way of not learning from recent history. What the Reds need to do is identify the absolute keepers and the kids who should be traded while they've got top markets. Imagine what might have happened if the JimBo regime had moved Gookie Dawkins instead of Mike Cameron. Imagine what Austin Kearns and Ty Howington might have fetched. That could have gone a long from transforming the Reds from also rans to a winning ballclub.

The Reds would be well advised to try to know now what will be known by all later. Being ranked #3 doesn't mean the future is assured, it means the club has a hand of cards to play.

Its not being revisionist at all. Right now the Reds have 4 top end prospects, 3 of which have had a lot of success in AAA and then Johnny Cueto who has very limited success in AAA.

Gookie Dawkins was a slap hitting SS with a 100 at bat stretch where he hit well. Heck, only 1 season did the guy OPS over .700 before he turned 25. Drew Henson was coming off a .750 OPS season at AA. Kearns was coming off a great season in 2000, but it was in Low A and then the next year as a 21 year old he had a .780 OPS in AA. Solid, but not mind blowing. Adam Dunn was coming off a solid season in 2000 in Dayton, but again, it was a solid season in low A. Ed Yarnall was a 24 year old pitcher in AAA with bad walk rates and not the best strikeout rates. Rob Bell was coming off a solid AA season. Jackson Melian was coming off a sub .700 OPS in 2000, albeit in AA at 20. Dane Sardinha hadn't played a game yet when he was ranked and well, he never had a season OPS over .688 in the minors. Same goes for David Espinosa.

Those were the guys rated as Top Prospects after 2000 and 2001. I don't think its revisionist at all, the guy we have now have shown very strong success in AA and in AAA. Back then there was absolutely none of that going on.

[M2]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Its not being revisionist at all. Right now the Reds have 4 top end prospects, 3 of which have had a lot of success in AAA and then Johnny Cueto who has very limited success in AAA.

I'll get to the preposterosity of "a lot" later, but that's not the part you're being revisionist about.

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Gookie Dawkins was a slap hitting SS with a 100 at bat stretch where he hit well. Heck, only 1 season did the guy OPS over .700 before he turned 25.

Gookie Dawkins was rated the #21 prospect in the minors in 2000 and he played on the Olympic winning team that season. All reports during the Jr. negotiations were that the Mariners were willing to make him the principal return in the deal. The Reds refused to discuss Dawkins and instead wound up trading Cameron. The Reds haven't had a middle IF that highly regarded since Larkin/Stillwell in the mid-80s. Either know some history or do some homework.

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Drew Henson was coming off a .750 OPS season at AA. Kearns was coming off a great season in 2000, but it was in Low A and then the next year as a 21 year old he had a .780 OPS in AA. Solid, but not mind blowing. Adam Dunn was coming off a solid season in 2000 in Dayton, but again, it was a solid season in low A. Ed Yarnall was a 24 year old pitcher in AAA with bad walk rates and not the best strikeout rates. Rob Bell was coming off a solid AA season. Jackson Melian was coming off a sub .700 OPS in 2000, albeit in AA at 20. Dane Sardinha hadn't played a game yet when he was ranked and well, he never had a season OPS over .688 in the minors. Same goes for David Espinosa.

All you've done there is delve into how incredibly deep the Reds system was deemed to be at the time. You've so far listed nine kids who ranked as top 100 prospects in the 2000-2001 time period, something the current batch can't match.

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Those were the guys rated as Top Prospects after 2000 and 2001. I don't think its revisionist at all, the guy we have now have shown very strong success in AA and in AAA. Back then there was absolutely none of that going on.

That's a nice artificial line you've drawn, but it's only being done in service of keeping you from considering something you don't want to consider (which of the top kids isn't a keeper). Only Votto and Maloney can claim full seasons of success in the upper minors at the moment and, all respect to those two, no one in their right mind would tell you they're better prospects than Dunn and Kearns were back in 2001. And once again, you need to look up the word "revisionist." You're panning kids universally deemed as bright prospects seven years ago. Since you tend toward enthusiasm when it comes to prospects (and I don't mean that as a criticism), I find it impossible to believe you wouldn't have been highly enthusiastic about the 2001 class had you been around at the time. For instance, a guy who still holds a candle for the now departed Miguel Perez surely wouldn't have been put off by Gookie Dawkins' 2000 season.

My suggestion is that rather than turning a critical eye toward history in an attempt to explain away why it happened, learn from history and turn that same critical eye toward the present in an effort to piece through what might be a better approach this time around.

[dougdirt]

M2, I stand firm on what I wrote. In 2000/2001 the Reds had a very deep system based on upside but very little true production anywhere other than A ball. Kearns and Dunn were very good prospects but were still in A ball (as far as when these system rankings came out). The rest of the group was banking off of their upside (see a Drew Stubbs type from this current group of prospects) and a little production that wasn't overly impressive. Yeah, I still like Drew Stubbs a lot, but in no way would I ever not trade him. For that matter I would trade Bailey, Cueto or Votto too, in the right situations. I think the two situations as far as what is in the systems is completely different though.

[M2]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

M2, I stand firm on what I wrote. In 2000/2001 the Reds had a very deep system based on upside but very little true production anywhere other than A ball.

And I stand by what I said, in 2000/2001 you'd have had a spoon in each hand gobbling up those prospects.

Anyway, if you're willing to consider moving most of the kids on the farm, it sounds like you're more or less in line with what princeton's urging. I'm sure he'd make a few deals you wouldn't, but that's a small difference in comparison to a complete philosophical rift.

[Steve4192]

Regardless of how this group of prospects compares to the 2000 group, there is one thing we know for certain ... most of them will never come close to reaching their potential. Chances are that a one or two will reach their ceiling, an additional two or three will become useful major leaguers, and the rest will replacement level chattel or complete washouts.

The trick is identifying the one or two studs and having to the cahones to move the rest if/when the right deal comes along. Unfortunately, the Reds chose to hold onto the entire 2000 crop only to watch the majority of them crash and burn and lose all of their trade value. I would like to see them avoid that mistake this time around.

[princeton]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

The trick is identifying the one or two studs and having to the cahones to move the rest if/when the right deal comes along.

I'm happy to move the studs, too, if it puts us in a position to contend for 2-3 years. I think that one tends to overrate one's prospects. Most people are optimists.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by princeton

I'm happy to move the studs, too, if it puts us in a position to contend for 2-3 years. I think that one tends to overrate one's prospects. Most people are optimists.

By studs I was referring to the guys who will end up being major league studs. Of course, the possibility exists that none of them will be studs or that you screw the pooch and lump a future star into the washout category and trade him away. My point is, that you just can't sit on your hands and let things play out on their own, because history has shown that the vast majority of prospects hit their peak value long before they ever step on a major league diamond.

Sure, you run the risk of trading away the wrong guys, but at some point you have to trust your scouting & development department enough to make a decision. Otherwise, you end up stuck in analysis paralysis and stand by idly as your valuable prospects turned into worthless suspects.