Pirates DFA Zach Stewart

[redsof72]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

The 2009 version of Stewart was one of the most overrated Reds minor leaguers I had seen in a long time.

Very surprised at that comment. You are a very well-versed observer and have proven that over many years on these boards. Did you see him pitch that year, see the way, at age 22, he was totally dominating people at every level...Single-A, Double-A, Triple-A? Not doing it with junk that wasn't going to translate to the big leagues either. Doing it with quality stuff. I don't know what happened to Stewart. Something did obviously. I am going to try to find out. The red flag that something was wrong might have been when he spent all of 2010 in Double-A after pitching in Triple-A effectively in both the Reds and Blue Jays systems in 2009.

[redsof72]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

In fact here's what Sickels said about Stewart at the time:

7) Zach Stewart, RHP, Grade B-: Strong arm, command issues, could move fast in the pen. Maybe a C+?

At the time? What do you mean, at the time? Was he updating his scouting report as Stewart was soaring from level to level through the system? Stewart started the year in Single-A. Moved up after seven starts. ERA in Double-A as a first full year professional was 1.46 in seven starts. To Triple-A, exactly one year after he was drafted. ERA there was 0.73. 16 K's in 12.1 innings at the time of the trade.

[redsof72]

Looked it up. Sickels actually wrote that on December 6, 2008, when Stewart had two months of pro experience. So it did not factor in ANY of what Stewart did in 2009.

It is pretty well documented that the Reds offered Alonso in this deal but Toronto insisted on Stewart. If the Reds felt that Alonso was the better prospect (and Toronto did as well), that would be a rather odd way to go about it.

[kaldaniels]

Saying he was the "Reds top prospect" or "one of the Reds top prospects" says nothing about his true value.

[kaldaniels]

If I'm reading right I keep seeing it said he dominated at AAA in 12 IP. Really?

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by redsof72

Very surprised at that comment. You are a very well-versed observer and have proven that over many years on these boards. Did you see him pitch that year, see the way, at age 22, he was totally dominating people at every level...Single-A, Double-A, Triple-A? Not doing it with junk that wasn't going to translate to the big leagues either. Doing it with quality stuff. I don't know what happened to Stewart. Something did obviously. I am going to try to find out. The red flag that something was wrong might have been when he spent all of 2010 in Double-A after pitching in Triple-A effectively in both the Reds and Blue Jays systems in 2009.

He was dominating people at every level? In the minors that year he had 93 Ks in 105 innings and let up 105 hits in that same span. Not exactly dominating.

Maybe Walt sold high.

[redsof72]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

If I'm reading right I keep seeing it said he dominated at AAA in 12 IP. Really?

Ok, ok. I am not sure how much more you think he needed to do that year to qualify for the term "dominant." In his first full year of pro ball, he started out in Sarasota in Single-A. He passed through Double-A and was in Triple-A before the end of June. In Double-A and Triple-A combined: 49.1 IP, 7 ER (1.28 ERA). He was doing this, not with fringy stuff, but with a fastball that was 93-94 and a hard slider that, regardless of the level, minor leaguer hitters could not do anything with.

Give me a list of Reds minor league pitchers who have moved through three levels in their first full season of pro ball, put up a 1.28 ERA at Double-A/Triple-A, and did it with power stuff?

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by redsof72

No prospect is a guarantee, obviously. My point is, the Reds were willing to trade their top prospect to close out the deal. Whether he went on to win Cy Youngs or to do what he has actually done (or not done), they were rolling the dice. Folks who want to make it sound like they somehow knew that Stewart was over-rated or whatever, that's not the case. They knew there was a chance they were going to get burned. As you might recall, they reportedly first offered Yonder Alonso instead, who was thought of pretty darn highly at that time.

Yes, there were people that saw his future as a reliever, but there was no one that I ever talked to that thought he "would not pan out." He was universally viewed by the Reds as their top prospect. Period.

By nature, since his value was because he was a starter, if he wasn't viewed as being able to cut it as a starter... isn't that the same as "not panning out?"

Let's be real here, his trade value diminished considerably if he were not thought of as being able to cut it as a starter.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by redsof72

Very surprised at that comment. You are a very well-versed observer and have proven that over many years on these boards. Did you see him pitch that year, see the way, at age 22, he was totally dominating people at every level...Single-A, Double-A, Triple-A? Not doing it with junk that wasn't going to translate to the big leagues either. Doing it with quality stuff. I don't know what happened to Stewart. Something did obviously. I am going to try to find out.

Yeah, I had seen him pitch out of the bullpen in Dayton, and he was completely dominant. He had no business playing there to be honest. When I saw him in Raleigh, it looked like it was just a matter of time before hitters would catch up to him. Although his slider made hitters look silly, you could tell the results would be a bit different once they had a chance to see him again. His fastball was nice and heavy with a slider that was clearly above average. People say nice things about his changeup, but it never impressed me. When he missed, he missed in the zone, and advanced hitters can capitalize on that a lot more.

It's easy to get excited about a prospect like Stewart. He was very successful at a young age in every level he entered. However, an assumption talent evaluators often make is that improvement is inevitable. My opinion was that he was already getting nearly the most out of his talent. I still think his best years are ahead of him as I think it's only his confidence that's holding him back, but I never saw his ceiling as anything more than a solid setup guy. I'm surprised so many teams have passed on him already because I think he could be a reliable reliever right now.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by redsof72

Give me a list of Reds minor league pitchers who have moved through three levels in their first full season of pro ball, put up a 1.28 ERA at Double-A/Triple-A, and did it with power stuff?

The past history Of Reds Minor Leaguers is not relevant to me.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

The past history Of Reds Minor Leaguers is not relevant to me.

Zach may have been the mediocre girl hanging out with the ugly crowd.

[redsof72]

Originally Posted by Brutus

By nature, since his value was because he was a starter, if he wasn't viewed as being able to cut it as a starter... isn't that the same as "not panning out?"

Let's be real here, his trade value diminished considerably if he were not thought of as being able to cut it as a starter.

Scouts don't evaluate prospects on their trade value unless they are actually being discussed in a trade. I would have to disagree with your statement that a pitcher who could not cut it as a starter and converted to reliever indicates that that pitcher did not pan out. Do you think Mariano Rivera panned out? Goose Gossage? John Franco?

I am not arguing that Stewart panned out. I am simply making the point that when he was traded, he was viewed as one heck of a prospect by the Reds and they hated to give him up.

[remdog]

OK, 'The Trade' is over and done. It's history. Here's my question: How many of you take a shot at signing Zach (possibly for very cheap $'s and see what Brian Price can do with him. I'd be willing to take a role of the dice there.

Rem

[Revering4Blue]

Originally Posted by remdog

OK, 'The Trade' is over and done. It's history. Here's my question: How many of you take a shot at signing Zach (possibly for very cheap $'s and see what Brian Price can do with him. I'd be willing to take a role of the dice there.

Rem

So would I.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by redsof72

.

Lets not change who Stewart was on the day they traded him. He was the Reds top prospect and one of the better arms they had drafted/developed in years. .

Let's see what the experts rated him going into 2009: (these are all Reds' top prospect rankings)


Sickles rated him a weak B-

Zach Stewart, RHP, Grade B-: Strong arm, command issues, could move fast in the pen. Maybe a C+?

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/...eds-top-20-pro

He didn't make Goldstein's top 11.. was under "just missed"
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=8304

Didn't make Baseball America top 10, or get in any of the best tools list
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today...09/267416.html

Was #8 on Baseball Intellect's list, behind Lotzar and Darell Thompson.

Those were the first four ranking lists I could find for 2009.. In other words, it seems like only Redszone was really enamored with him, at least going into the 2009 season. No one rated him that highly. He seemed to be consistently behind at least Lotzar in every list.

I think we have to at least acknowledge the possiblity that maybe the Reds knew he was chaff, promoted him to AAA, and put him in relief to build up some gaudy stats? I said this at the time of the trade.. if the Reds thought so highly of Stewart, why did they promote him to the AAA bullpen. Contrast that to how Cingrani has been groomed, for example.