Jim Callis Espn Chat

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'd say that's probably pretty accurate. Just my opinion but I would have to think that Bruce and Cueto are the 2 that reach their ceilings. Now just need to figure out who's left that won't be useful major leaguers and deal them.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

I'd say that's probably pretty accurate. Just my opinion but I would have to think that Bruce and Cueto are the 2 that reach their ceilings. Now just need to figure out who's left that won't be useful major leaguers and deal them.

The term "useful major leaguers" really needs to be specifically defined. At this point I'd suggest all of these guys (Bruce, Votto, Cueto, and Bailey) will at least be useful major leaguers. A fourth outfielder or a middle reliever is a useful major leaguer albeit neither are awe-inspiring roles for prospects some grade at the A level. Still there is value to even filling those roles at the major league level.

I think you're suggesting the Reds need to properly value the major league contributions these guys will make and keep the ones that will surpass the Reds' arbitrary threshold of acceptable performance given their prospect status (which I'm assuming most would argue is tied to their current trade value) and trade the ones that won't meet this threshold.

I know this might seem like hairsplitting to some but this really isn't a trivial exercise IMHO. Basically, what are the chances that a prospect can equal/outperform his current trade value (and I'd argue relative costs of production and implications for playoff baseball have to be considered along with risk)?

[M2]

Originally Posted by jojo

The term "useful major leaguers" really needs to be specifically defined. At this point I'd suggest all of these guys (Bruce, Votto, Cueto, and Bailey) will at least be useful major leaguers. A fourth outfielder or a middle reliever is a useful major leaguer albeit neither are awe-inspiring roles for prospects some grade at the A level. Still there is value to even filling those roles at the major league level.

I think you're suggesting the Reds need to properly value the major league contributions these guys will make and keep the ones that will surpass the Reds' arbitrary threshold of acceptable performance given their prospect status (which I'm assuming most would argue is tied to their current trade value) and trade the ones that won't meet this threshold.

I know this might seem like hairsplitting to some but this really isn't a trivial exercise IMHO. Basically, what are the chances that a prospect can equal/outperform his current trade value (and I'd argue relative costs of production and implications for playoff baseball have to be considered along with risk)?

Fair points. Probably the standard ought to be everyday plus player at his position or above average starter for at least a three-year stretch.

[laxtonto]

One of the concerning points of the Reds #3 ranking is the fact that unlike Texas or even TB, the Reds are aboutot graduate a large portion of the top of the system. With Baily and Bruce's loss of prospect status the minor league sytem is set to drop back to the middle teir at best. It seems the system is top heavy and lacks overall depth

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by laxtonto

One of the concerning points of the Reds #3 ranking is the fact that unlike Texas or even TB, the Reds are aboutot graduate a large portion of the top of the system. With Baily and Bruce's loss of prospect status the minor league sytem is set to drop back to the middle teir at best. It seems the system is top heavy and lacks overall depth

Perhaps TB but I don't know how much I agree with Texas being as good. I think Texas' certainly isn't as top heavy but I question how their top 4 prospects can even come close to ours in terms of ceiling.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by M2

Fair points. Probably the standard ought to be everyday plus player at his position or above average starter for at least a three-year stretch.

What's the avg total VORP for an everyday, plus player? That would help to determine what a reasonable line is? And the same goes for pitchers.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by laxtonto

One of the concerning points of the Reds #3 ranking is the fact that unlike Texas or even TB, the Reds are aboutot graduate a large portion of the top of the system. With Baily and Bruce's loss of prospect status the minor league sytem is set to drop back to the middle teir at best. It seems the system is top heavy and lacks overall depth

Except thats not true at all. While it appears 'top heavy' it only seems that way because they have 4 top 30 overall prospects. Drew Stubbs, Devin Mesoraco, Todd Frazier, Matt Maloney, Josh Roenicke, Travis Wood, Danny Dorn, Adam Rosales, Juan Francisco, Kyle Lotzkar, Pedro Viola..... That sounds like pretty good depth right there and I would make an argument that any one of those guys makes other teams top 10s (for the most part).

[M2]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

What's the avg total VORP for an everyday, plus player? That would help to determine what a reasonable line is? And the same goes for pitchers.

Depends on the position. Here's the overall positional totals for 2007 from BBP's EQA breakdown. Obviously if you're going to be in an OF corner or at 1B, you've got to do a lot of hitting to get above the average. Defense belongs somewhere in the conversation too (I'll leave it to personal taste as to whether to use linear or cumulative weights).

As for pitchers, I'd go for something pragmatic. Ultimately you want run prevention, so pick an ERA+ to your liking (probably somewhere from 100 to 110) and go from there. If you get a three-year run better than that, you're likely to be a pretty happy camper (e.g. look at Harang from 2005-7).

[princeton]

Originally Posted by laxtonto

One of the concerning points of the Reds #3 ranking is the fact that unlike Texas or even TB, the Reds are aboutot graduate a large portion of the top of the system. With Baily and Bruce's loss of prospect status the minor league sytem is set to drop back to the middle teir at best. It seems the system is top heavy and lacks overall depth

Prospects 6-12 could be stronger, it's true. Below that, it gets relatively good again.

[laxtonto]

It tends to happen in systems when prospects jump lvls. The bad part about it is that its going to coincide when the Reds should start making a real push. That missing lvl will either force the Reds to trade the low teir high potential guys to attempt finish filling the holes or wait a year or two and waste time on the arbitration clock of the young guys.

Top 6 guys are great, but i agree the 6-12 guys are weak and may end up all getting passed up by other prospects this year.

As far as some of them being #1 in other orginzations, maybe in ChiWS or Hou

[Betterread]

Its great that the Reds were ranked #3 - matches the rating in 2001.
I agree with Doug that the 2008 top 5 compares favorably with the 2001 top 5. In retrospect, Henson, Sardinha and Espinosa were highly overrated by BA.

2008
1.Bruce
2.Bailey
3.Votto
4.Cueto
5.Stubbs

2001
1. Kearns
2. Dunn
3. Henson
4. Sardinha
5. Espinosa

I am concerned about the dropoff from 5 to 10. Those are the optimal players to trade - not your top guys but still very attractive to other organizations.

[Aronchis]

I have heard the Bailey era group being mentioned as a historical group in prospectdom.

It will probably be awhile before the Reds get a such a haul again.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

What's the avg total VORP for an everyday, plus player? That would help to determine what a reasonable line is? And the same goes for pitchers.

I back engineered BP's VORP formula back in the day (it must've been a rainy day) because I was wondering about the difference between league average and replacement level. Below is the VORP generated by being league average offensively at each position (assuming 600 plate appearances) for the 2006 season:

POS	League	VORP
C	AL	26
C	NL	31
1b	AL	25
1b	NL	29
2b	AL	14
2b	NL	15
3b	AL	17
3b	NL	25
ss	AL	14
ss	NL	10
LF	AL	19
LF	NL	25
CF	AL	14
CF	NL	11
RF	AL	25
RF	NL	24
DH	AL	20
DH	NL	17
PH	AL	0
PH	NL	13
Check of formula		
Player	BP	Me
05Dunn	45	46
06Dunn	24	25
06Ross	22	22

So if an outfield prospect simply became a league average right field bat, he'd be good for roughly 2.5 wins over replacement over the course of a full season. Replacement level defense is essentially neutral so that prospect's worth would increase further if he was a plus defender or decrease if he was a minus defender when considering his overall value.

Wins are roughly worth $4M right now so assuming the hypothetical prospect was a league average RF bat and a neutral defender (overall value equals 25 runs or 2.5 wins over replacement), his production would be worth roughly $10M. At league minimum, he's a bargain even though from our view as fans, he might be considered a disappointment.

[Cedric]

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.

Of course you are dead on that the Reds need to identify the keepers and trade away the hype. I don't think Doug was advising anything other than that. Unless I'm wrong I think he was talking about the top end talent and even at that time none of those players had the raw talent and production that the top five has now.

Look at the BA top 5 from 2001 and then look at it to the group we have now and it's really not even close. Henson was Yankee/Wolverine hype with raw talent and not much production. Sardinha and Espinoza were completely hype.

Only one player in the current top five is lacking production and is rated more on ceiling. Three of the top five in 01 were almost complete hype.

I'd suggest that if Maloney was #5 like he should be this wouldn't even be a question. Not even mentioning that the 01 class wasn't diverse at the top like this year. I think you both have good points, just maybe Doug didn't come clear that he was talking about top end ready to produce talent. He said that and by any measure he's right , IMO.

[11larkin11]

Lotzkar, Mesoraco, Stubbs, Frazier lead the next stardom group with Soto, Waring, and Wood on the hump.