Who Is RedsZone's #10 Prospect?

[IslandRed]

cincyinco, I think a lot of it is, people have seen enough pre-draft scouting reports that turned out to be total rubbish that they're skeptical of rating anyone solely on the basis of those reports, as you must until there's some kind of performance record to go on. That's where Loo is right now. By this time next year, maybe we'll be saying all those things about Loo that you said, and I hope so. If we are, he'll be a lot higher on that list.

Scouting reports can be plenty wrong on major-college players too but at least there's some kind of performance record to evaluate. Valaika's scouting reports weren't unanimous, but his short-season performance was sufficiently impressive that people are thinking we might get the better end of those projections (2B with a good bat) as opposed to the lower end (fringe utility guy).

[Patrick Bateman]

Same here. I don't get the Watson picks. He'll spend the next three years trying to catch up to where Shafer is today.

Watson also has a lot more upside than Shafer. That merits a great deal of consideration.

[reds44]

Watson.

[Blue]

I voted for Hamilton. I realize that there is a lot of sentiment against that, but given his ceiling, I think he's worthy. He started off very slowly, but put together a nice stretch prior to his knee injury. He's young enough that the potential is still there, and I'm glad we've got him.

I don't think Shafer's stuff is good enough to warrant a spot in the top 10. As far as pitchers go, I'd put Watson, Coutlangus, Medlock, and Brad Salmon ahead of him.

[dmcgee77]

I voted for Dumatrait. He's a first round pick (2000 draft) that we got from the Red Sox. We traded Scott Williamson to get him. He's poised to make a charge for the Red's #5 starter role. His six year minor league ERA is an impressive 3.29. Granted, last year was an off year for him, but we can't afford to let first rounders gather mold and dust. He got my vote.

[Betterread]

I voted for Josh Ravin. He's a big, strong kid with a mid90s fastball and secondary pitches with potential. I hope they continue to develop him as a starting pitcher, and we can see how he adjusts to low A in 2007. He showed great promise by flashing dominating stuff in 2006.

[Kc61]

This top ten now will likely have 4 members drafted last year who played primarily in rookie ball. Stubbs, Valaika, Loo, Watson.

This doesn't reflect that well on the more experienced members of the organization. It also embraces Krivsky's draft, which wasn't that well received at the time.

Aside from Valaika, who really had an extraordinary year in advanced rookie ball and whose history reflects many attributes I like (came back from injury, always has hit against good competition), I wonder whether these guys really deserve this much support.

For me, the Reds' placement of Loo at the GCL level indicates he has a long way to go. Stubbs didn't hit at Billings. Watson, a college pitcher, could not handle low A ball. I understand that a half season, breaking into pro ball, doesn't tell us much but I am surprised by the level of support for these guys.

While this is a fun exercise, it raises a lot of questions, particularly about the near-term.

Other than Bailey, do the Reds have any starting pitchers who can help in 2007 or even 2008? Are Cueto and Wood good enough to be effective in the major league in the next couple of years? Are the Reds putting too much emphasis on one arm, that of Mr. Bailey, and are any of their other starting prospects real.

The one area where the Reds have some high-level depth is in the bullpen at the AA and AAA levels. Shafer, Coutlangus, Medlock, Salmon, Guevera, perhaps others. How good are these guys? Are any of them genuine candidates to pitch late in games?

The apparent top ten list has one high-level position player, Votto. With Griffey and Dunn questionable beyond the next year or two (contract, age, etc.), can the Reds' system provide replacements in the near-term? Can Bruce progress quickly enough? Do the Reds see Denorfia as a full time player? As a top college player, we would have hoped for Stubbs to be at about High A or even possibly AA some time next year. Is that possible?

Again, this has been a fun exercise.

[Betterread]

You guys really think Valakia has more pop in his bat than Loo? I still think Loo has a lot of projection, and room to grow.

I like Valaika too guys, but most everything I read on the guy says he wont stick at SS, which in my mind, seriously decreases his value. I don't know that he'd hit enough for 3rd base, but he would make a nice 2b prospect. In any case, Loo seems like a pretty sure bet to be a guy who man's the hot corner, with above average offensive potential, and at the very least average defense.

Valaika isn't super big - 6'0 and 195.. about my size. He def. has a good track record with team USA. I defenitely like his makeup, as he came back and worked seriosly hard to get in shape after a bad injury to the knee. He has quick hands, but IMO, just average power. His hands are good on D and Offense, but he lacks range, which IMO limits his value. If he can't stick at SS, then his value decreases considerably in my eyes. He's barely an average runner. And again, most things I read about him point to being a utility infielder - even MLB.com's draft day scouting report states "utility infielder". I personally think he can be better than that, but...

When you look at Milton Loo, on the other hand - although he's not much bigger, he seemingly offers more projection. He is a 5 tool talent, thats for sure.. I think he has a lot more raw or untapped power than he's shown thus far, and I think at the very min. his power will be on par with Valaika. Hitting is def. his best tool, but he's a great athlete, and I think he could play SS if the Reds wanted him too. He's got good range, above average arm, and solid actions. He seems like a team leader to me too, which is a plus for his makeup in my eyes. He's also a plus runner, as was mentioned.

I dont know, he just seems to have more of the total package to me.

In regards to how I evaluate prospects - I focus a lot on projectability, ceiling, tools, etc. Actual performance is secondary IMO, when talking about prospects. They need to perform eventually, but I wont sour on a guy simply becuase he had a rough debut(cough.. stubbs... cough) or a year spent learning/growing(see homer bailey in 2005 when everyone wrote him off.... man i can remember doug and I getting into some intense discussions defending him as a prospect around here..).

I also look at makeup of a prospect, as I think this is a highly undervalued and underrated - or overlooked - "tool" of a prospect. I tend to think less of prospects like Delmon Young or Elijah Dukes due to their makeup issues, and I think a guys work ethic and desire is a serious attribute that needs to be weighed when evaluating a prospect. This is one factor I like a lot about Valaika.

I think Valaika deserves to be in the top 10 of this list.. I just dont agree that he should be before Loo. He didn't do anything spectacular IMO, just what he should have done as a college player facing rookie level pitching. If he does it at High A, my hopes will raise. If he does it at AA, then I'll truely be impressed. Until then, I temper my enthusiasm for him, and don't put a lot of weight in his stats, as nice as they are. Anyone remember how big the hype was surrounding Adam Rosales around here? I fear Valakia could be getting the same type of hype. Rosales simply did what he was supposed to do when he was "the next big thing" - some on here rated him above homer bailey on their charts...

I dunno.. its interesting discussion, and thanks for the insight on how you guys judge the talent.. I appreciate it, brings a new perspective to how I look at things.

Your advocacy for Loo is good reading and you ask reasonable questions, so here is my perspective.
I like Loo and Valaika a little better than Stubbs, because they both have quick bats, center the ball really well and can flat out hit the ball consistently, and hit it hard to all fields. I like Valaika better, because he has played stronger competition in college and in Rookie ball, and proven himself against that competition. He also played SS for Billings, while Loo will probably move to 3B. This tells me the Reds see him staying at SS for the time being, which is merited by his defense, which is pretty good (though not as good as Janish - who is the best fielding SS in the minors, with Olmedo gone). It also means that the type of offensive expectation for Loo is different at 3B than SS. A 3b typically needs to hit for power and Loo is all projected power at this point in his development. He can hit, but my question is can he hit for power? The scouting projections (for what they are worth) also have Valaika hitting for more power than Loo.

[dougdirt]

This top ten now will likely have 4 members drafted last year who played primarily in rookie ball. Stubbs, Valaika, Loo, Watson.

This doesn't reflect that well on the more experienced members of the organization. It also embraces Krivsky's draft, which wasn't that well received at the time.

I didnt like the first two picks from the draft at the time, as I would have gone other places with them, but beyond that I didnt have a problem with the draft. The guys performed about as well as you could hope for, and I honestly think we may have found a steal with Josh Ravin in the 5th round.

Aside from Valaika, who really had an extraordinary year in advanced rookie ball and whose history reflects many attributes I like (came back from injury, always has hit against good competition), I wonder whether these guys really deserve this much support.

Stubbs, Loo and Watson all have very good upsides. Stubbs and Valaika are both potential 5 tool talents. Stubbs needs to hit for a little more contact, but that is really the only rub on him right now. Loo needs to develop a little more power. Watson throw in the 92-95mph range, and also throws 3 other pitches beyond his fastball....all three have the upside that a top 10 guy should have, and especially after 200 at bats in rookie ball, that is something you really need to be looking at.

For me, the Reds' placement of Loo at the GCL level indicates he has a long way to go. Stubbs didn't hit at Billings. Watson, a college pitcher, could not handle low A ball. I understand that a half season, breaking into pro ball, doesn't tell us much but I am surprised by the level of support for these guys.

I think it had a more to do with his elbow problems he had than it had to do with anything else.

While this is a fun exercise, it raises a lot of questions, particularly about the near-term.

Other than Bailey, do the Reds have any starting pitchers who can help in 2007 or even 2008? Are Cueto and Wood good enough to be effective in the major league in the next couple of years? Are the Reds putting too much emphasis on one arm, that of Mr. Bailey, and are any of their other starting prospects real.

I dont think the Reds have any starters that can help in 2007 that arent named Homer Bailey. Although with that said Johnny Cueto could be ready some time in 2008. I figure he probably starts this season in AA, if not he would start in A+ again, and he performed quite well there already last year and be ready to advance soon. He could easily be in AAA by 2008 if things go by plan, which could mean he could help by 2008 if needed to. I think Travis Wood is good enough to help out eventually, but I think he is one we will wait for until at least 2009 or 2010.

The one area where the Reds have some high-level depth is in the bullpen at the AA and AAA levels. Shafer, Coutlangus, Medlock, Salmon, Guevera, perhaps others. How good are these guys? Are any of them genuine candidates to pitch late in games?

I am not sure any of them are candidates to be "closers", maybe Medlock because he has the best fastball...but they are probably all middle-set up men types.

The apparent top ten list has one high-level position player, Votto. With Griffey and Dunn questionable beyond the next year or two (contract, age, etc.), can the Reds' system provide replacements in the near-term? Can Bruce progress quickly enough? Do the Reds see Denorfia as a full time player? As a top college player, we would have hoped for Stubbs to be at about High A or even possibly AA some time next year. Is that possible?

Again, this has been a fun exercise.

With Griffey and Dunn leaving, I think we can rely on Denorfia to hold the fort down for now, but by the time the two have contracts up (2 years) Jay Bruce should probably be ready to take the job from someone in either CF or RF. I honestly wouldnt be surprised to see Stubbs begin the season in Sarasota. Krivsky talks about "every level" but he sure let Brandon Roberts jump from Billings to Sarasota and he didnt have the pedigree that Stubbs had, so I wouldnt be surprised to see several college draftees start in Sarasota....

[Blue]

I hope they keep Loo and Valaika at middle infield positions, in case Brandon Phillips can't build on last season over the next couple years.

[TRF]

Went with Medlock. Plus stuff, performed at every level, not his fault he got moved to the bullpen. Shafer is next.

ditto..

[RedsManRick]

In regards to how I evaluate prospects - I focus a lot on projectability, ceiling, tools, etc. Actual performance is secondary IMO, when talking about prospects. They need to perform eventually, but I wont sour on a guy simply becuase he had a rough debut(cough.. stubbs... cough) or a year spent learning/growing(see homer bailey in 2005 when everyone wrote him off.... man i can remember doug and I getting into some intense discussions defending him as a prospect around here..).

Just curious Cincyco, but where is the line between projectable tools and performance. Do we have examples of good major leaguers who never performed well (notably) in the minors? I don't know the answer. For me though, a guy who is putting up notable numbers in a league equal to or above his age level is showing those skills.

A corralary, what skills project well through a player's development? I tend to think focus on thinks that represent something a guy has to do rather than something other player's can do which affect his performance. A guy could have a decent curve that he can't locate and so he strikes a bunch out but also walks a lot guys. I would think that as he moves up, the strikeouts would lesson and the walks would stay or increase. For hitters walks are great but you can't fake power or speed. I'm more worried about that contact rate than the walk rate against pitchers who might not have great control. Anyways, perhaps this is a completely different thread, but I'd love see a fresh conversation about how different people go about evaluating and rating prospects.

[M2]

Watson also has a lot more upside than Shafer. That merits a great deal of consideration.

My take is it's phantom upside. I don't think there's anything special about Watson.

He's trying to do a job Shafer's already done for a few years. Shafer keeps people off the bases, doesn't give up power, doesn't allow many runs and makes hitters swing and miss. That impresses me.

[DoogMinAmo]

My take is it's phantom upside. I don't think there's anything special about Watson.

He's trying to do a job Shafer's already done for a few years. Shafer keeps people off the bases, doesn't give up power, doesn't allow many runs and makes hitters swing and miss. That impresses me.

Out of curiosity, how long until the Reds can lose Shafer?

i.e. what is his rule 5/ six year minor league FA status?

[HokieRed]

I voted Cody Strait again. Seems to me to be very much undervalued not only by the board but by John Sickels. Just did some unofficial stat calculations on the Florida State League: only three guys in that league had better than .450 percentage of their hits for extra bases. Strait is one of the three and only hundredths of a point from the top. The other two stole 2 and 9 bases respectively, Strait stole 50, tied for the league lead. One of these other two, Paul Larish of the Tigers, is a B- prospect for Sickels, #6 in the Tigers system. Yet Strait doesn't even get mentioned on Sickels list or in his additional category. And it's not a matter of age--Larish is seven months older than Strait. Another comparison is with Paul Janish, also seven months older than Strait, #11 for Sickels in our organization. Janish had 30% of his FSL hits for extra bases last year, Strait 45%. Janish is apparently a fine fielder but Strait was, I believe, the highest rated defender of any Reds minor leaguer.