Who is Redszone's #1 prospect? 2013

[mdccclxix]

100 mph fastball with good secondary stuff or the craziest legs ever? both could be ephemeral. Proximity to majors vs chances the tools will play up. Hrmm. Desire to be great seems to be a wash. I think this should be a tie.

[mdccclxix]

Kids can throw 100 more often nowadays, and its probable that early reports on this stuff can be inaccurate to some extent. Billy's speed is way ahead of the curve...it's probably more special than a 19 y/o who can throw 100.

When you project Billy Hamilton having success in the majors with his skill set, it's a bizarre world we would be living in. Players and coaches have tried to relate the tales. You can't explain what it means to watch someone score from 2nd on an infield fly. I read that recently. Even outfielders lose their nerve when Billy's in the game. The timing for everything is off the charts.

So, even though Stephenson is so awesome and at his peak would be probably be worth more than Hamilton's peak, I think if Hamilton does dominate in his certain way then the overall effect will be massive, especially for a 3-4 year stretch in his mid-20's. I thought for sure I'd vote Stephenson, but I'll go with Hamilton because of the unexpected entertainment factor.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by texasdave

I am curious as to how people rank prospects so I have a several questions. Everyone has their own thoughts on ranking prospects, so there is no right or wrong, IMO.

1) Is it too soon to rank him the number 2 prospect? Because that is very likely where he is going to end up.

2) With only 8 games under his belt, what is the highest he should be ranked?

3) If you were trading him, would you place a top-prospect value on him?

Generally speaking, I rank the guys with high-minors experience who project as starting eight/rotation caliber major leaguers above kids with little to no experience regardless of how talented those kids are. On the flip side, I rank the inexperienced kids with upside over guys with high minors experience but only project as bench/bullpen fodder in the majors.

1. I would probably rank him second since I have serious doubts about Corcino/Cingrani sticking as starters and Gregorius being anything more than a bench glove. I might rank Corcino above him since my only real concern with him is his size and not any of his baseball-related skills.

2. Depends on who else is in the organization. In some organizations, I could definitely see him as their #1 prospect. In others, he might not crack the top five.

3. You bet your ass I would. If the Reds were a rebuilding team, I doubt I would consider trading him at all. With the Reds currently being contenders, I would consider trading him if he brought me a return that could significantly help the 2013-2015 Reds.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by mdccclxix

100 mph fastball with good secondary stuff or the craziest legs ever? both could be ephemeral. Proximity to majors vs chances the tools will play up. Hrmm. Desire to be great seems to be a wash. I think this should be a tie.

I disagree.

Hamilton has proven his desire to be great by significantly improving his game year after year. Stephenson might have the same level of desire, but he hasn't proven it yet. It's going to take a few years to draw a bead on just how badly he wants to improve.

[mdccclxix]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

I disagree.

Hamilton has proven his desire to be great by significantly improving his game year after year. Stephenson might have the same level of desire, but he hasn't proven it yet. It's going to take a few years to draw a bead on just how badly he wants to improve.

I take it you mean to elevate Hamilton and not ding Stephenson, right? He's gotten praise for his makeup and I came away impressed each time I've listened or read an interview.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by mdccclxix

I take it you mean to elevate Hamilton and not ding Stephenson, right? He's gotten praise for his makeup and I came away impressed each time I've listened or read an interview.

I don't mean to ding him at all. But getting praise for your makeup and actually using that makeup to deliver tangible results are two very different things.

Billy has delivered tangible results. He has shown MASSIVE improvements since the day he was drafted. Billy's makeup is no longer a matter of opinion. Stephenson's makeup might be just as great, or even greater, but he has yet to prove anything. All we have to go on is scout's opinions, and scouts have been known to be wrong.

[mdccclxix]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

I don't mean to ding him at all. But getting praise for your makeup and actually using that makeup to deliver tangible results are two very different things.

Billy has delivered tangible results. He has shown MASSIVE improvements since the day he was drafted. Billy's makeup is no longer a matter of opinion. Stephenson's makeup might be just as great, or even greater, but he has yet to prove anything. All we have to go on is scout's opinions, and scouts have been known to be wrong.

I hear what you're saying. The two are actually starting from different places. Billy was very raw and those guys often wash out. When they don't they deserve a lot of credit and attention. I have always liked Billy's desire and ability to adjust.

It is likely going to be a while before we see Stephenson have to face the upward pressure of equal or better competition. Plus, he was drafted with a much more complete profile and has only had a little time to prove his wares (in which time he exceeded many people's idea). Saying his desire or ability to adjust isn't as strong as Hamilton's isn't the best way to judge Stephenson. I'll give him credit for developing into what he is so far, and coupled with the positive things I've gathered, consider him just as likely to improve and push to be great as Hamilton is.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by mdccclxix

Saying his desire or ability to adjust isn't as strong as Hamilton's isn't the best way to judge Stephenson.

That's not what I said

Stephenson's makeup might be just as great, or even greater, but he has yet to prove anything

My point is we don't KNOW anything about Stephenson's makeup yet. All we have to go on are opinions. I look forward to seeing whether those opinions prove out in the coming years. I hope they do.

[mdccclxix]

There is the desire to be great, and there are the tools to be great. You can't teach speed or 100mph. I think Billy and Stephenson are legit when it comes to makeup and desire. And the tools are there for both. Granted, Billy has been in the system for 2 more years, so we know even better about him. But Stephenson has been given high marks in the same regard and he's succeeded quite well already.

[nate1213]

Had to go with Stephenson. They both have potential to be huge game changers in the big leagues, but I take a potential TOR pitcher with a huge arm every time.

[klw]

I voted for Robert Stevenson but I think Robert Stephenson will be better. I was back an forth between Hamilton and Stephenson and will be quite happy to see either in the top two slots.

[texasdave]

Originally Posted by klw

I voted for Robert Stevenson but I think Robert Stephenson will be better. I was back an forth between Hamilton and Stephenson and will be quite happy to see either in the top two slots.

Duly noted. I will pay stricter attention to details next time. At least this is up and running.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by klw

I voted for Robert Stevenson but I think Robert Stephenson will be better. I was back an forth between Hamilton and Stephenson and will be quite happy to see either in the top two slots.

I picked Steve Rogers in part because I think he'll be better than Chad Rogers.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by mdccclxix

Kids can throw 100 more often nowadays, and its probable that early reports on this stuff can be inaccurate to some extent. Billy's speed is way ahead of the curve...it's probably more special than a 19 y/o who can throw 100.

When you project Billy Hamilton having success in the majors with his skill set, it's a bizarre world we would be living in. Players and coaches have tried to relate the tales. You can't explain what it means to watch someone score from 2nd on an infield fly. I read that recently. Even outfielders lose their nerve when Billy's in the game. The timing for everything is off the charts.

So, even though Stephenson is so awesome and at his peak would be probably be worth more than Hamilton's peak, I think if Hamilton does dominate in his certain way then the overall effect will be massive, especially for a 3-4 year stretch in his mid-20's. I thought for sure I'd vote Stephenson, but I'll go with Hamilton because of the unexpected entertainment factor.

While Hamilton's speed is "better" than Stephenson's velocity, I will take a pitchers velocity as a "carry tool" over a players speed every day of the week and so would every scout in the history of the world.

[texasdave]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

I picked Steve Rogers in part because I think he'll be better than Chad Rogers.

If he throws his fastball anywhere near as well as he throws his shield, that much is a dead certainty. But, getting back to reality, Steve Rogers was a five-time all-star, won 158 games in the bigs and had a career ERA of 3.17 in over 2800 IP. Chad does have his work cut out for him.