Why does Homer Bailey get so much criticism?

[dougdirt]

Every start he has that isnt well gets blown up around here. Why?
Why is it when Jay Bruce goes 0-18 twice this year, no one really makes a fuss? Where they both not first round picks? Where they both not given million dollar signing bonuses? Can someone explain to me the difference?

[Luvsbaseball]

I'm with you, I don't understand either. Everyone needs to remember he just turned 20!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lollipopcurve]

Every start he has that isnt well gets blown up around here. Why?
Why is it when Jay Bruce goes 0-18 twice this year, no one really makes a fuss? Where they both not first round picks? Where they both not given million dollar signing bonuses? Can someone explain to me the difference?

I think it goes back to the draft. Those who didn't like that the Reds chose a HS arm in 04 tend to point out his faults, while those of us who liked Homer's upside (not as many as were in the other camp) tend to point out his strengths.

Bruce was a much more popular selection, so he gets the RZ benefit of the doubt.

[NC Reds]

I agree. Homer should be allowed to develop. I'm actually more concerned about the quality of coaching he gets in our system than I am about his talent.

[Red Leader]

I think it has more to do with the fact that we NEED Homer Bailey to be a STUD a lot more than we need Jay Bruce to be one.

Some people hold Bailey to exremely lofty expectations. Some others don't think much of him at all. He's a lot like Dunn in that regard. When he doesn't perform up to expecations for some, they bicker, and go through the whole "the sky is falling" routine. Others just sit back and said "told you so," which irks the first group even more.

Me? I think Bailey has talent. I think he's going to come more slowly than a lot of people think, but he'll get there eventually. Whether he stays there for good or not, is up to him. I can't predict what a player really wants for himself, because I have no idea. The talent is definately there, though.

[Red Leader]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

I think it goes back to the draft. Those who didn't like that the Reds chose a HS arm in 04 tend to point out his faults, while those of us who liked Homer's upside (not as many as were in the other camp) tend to point out his strengths.

Bruce was a much more popular selection, so he gets the RZ benefit of the doubt.

I think this plays a role in it as well. Homer wasn't a popular draft choice by many on this site. Bruce being picked was much better received.

[rdiersin]

Originally Posted by Red Leader

I think it has more to do with the fact that we NEED Homer Bailey to be a STUD a lot more than we need Jay Bruce to be one.

Some people hold Bailey to exremely lofty expectations. Some others don't think much of him at all. He's a lot like Dunn in that regard. When he doesn't perform up to expecations for some, they bicker, and go through the whole "the sky is falling" routine. Others just sit back and said "told you so," which irks the first group even more.

Me? I think Bailey has talent. I think he's going to come more slowly than a lot of people think, but he'll get there eventually. Whether he stays there for good or not, is up to him. I can't predict what a player really wants for himself, because I have no idea. The talent is definately there, though.

To add to this, I also think some of the problem is the expectations being heaped on Bailey. People tend to think of him as the next ace or whatever and those that are bringing up points tend to say "hey, hold on a second before we start calling him that". I don't think anyone denies that he has talent, that shows up in many places whether you've seen him pitch or even looking at his secondary stats. But, the thing of it is, he hasn't dominated. That's not being negative, it simply is what it is. If we want his name mentioned along the other top prospects in the game then he has to show some sort of consistent domination. Will it happen? Who knows, I hope it does, that's for sure.

[Aronchis]

Bailey's development has been slow, slower than expected. He looked like his development would be slow in his rookie year of 2004 and other than for 1.5 months last April/May 2005, he hasn't veered heavily from that point.

[cincyinco]

You guys need to excersize some patience. Homer is 20 years old and has roughly 2 seasons of pro ball. A half season or less in rookie, a year in Dayton, and 2 months so far this year. he is 20 years old. I repeat, 20 years old.

I think its also important to remember that not every high profile prospect is dominant or excels right from the get go. There is something that needs to be said for scouting and projection on this board. Homer can improve, homer can make adjustments, homer can grow as a ball player. All to often I see people look at the stats and dismiss Homer Bailey. Thats flat out silly IMHO.

Is he an ace yet? No. But he projects to be. Projections can be wrong, but its an integral part in selecting a player in the draft. You take the guy with the best possible ceiling, and I argue the Reds did exactly that when they selected Homer - highschool arm or not. The guy has shown flashes of dominance, yet he's inconsistent.

Why thats surprising to anyone, that a 20 year old who's learning the nuances of the game is inconsistent, is beyond me.

[traderumor]

1) It was O'Brien's first "statement" that nothing had changed, that the Reds FO still had no clue how to right the ship
2) I believe that draft was very heavy in college arms, some of which I believe are currently close or cracking the majors
3) The Reds needed pitching desperately, and they picked a 5-7 year project
4) The prophetic nature of the predictions from those who did not like the pick are striking (that was not me, I came to the light later) and must be pointed out for educational purposes

[Red Leader]

Originally Posted by traderumor

1) It was O'Brien's first "statement" that nothing had changed, that the Reds FO still had no clue how to right the ship
2) I believe that draft was very heavy in college arms, some of which I believe are currently close or cracking the majors
3) The Reds needed pitching desperately, and they picked a 5-7 year project
4) The prophetic nature of the predictions from those who did not like the pick are striking (that was not me, I came to the light later) and must be pointed out for educational purposes

Agree on all points.

[cincyinco]

Coulda woulda shoulda..

If Homer turns into a legit, bonafide, number one, ace starting pitcher... is he worth it?

Would you take a mid rotation starter that could help NOW over a potential ace down the line?

I dont know about you guys, but I take the ace. Every. Single. Time.

[M2]

IMO, there's a number of reasons for the criticism:

1) He's been wildly overrated, both by people on this board and off. He doesn't work in the mid-90s like he was billed as doing, he doesn't have anywhere near the control he was projected as having. Supposedly he was a stud when he got drafted and for two years he's failed to deliver on that hype. I've seen stud pitchers come out of the prep ranks, not for the Reds so much, and Homer Bailey's not even a vague imitation of a real stud prospect pitcher. He's got some talent that he hasn't been able to translate effectively. I'm not even sure if it's "big" talent or that his absolute ceiling isn't a #3 starter.

I would think that even his biggest supporters would recognize how immensely frustrating he's been.

2) He was exactly what the Reds didn't need in the 2004 draft. The club lacked advanced pitching prospects and quality pitchers in the majors. Previous HS golden boy arms had washed out on the organization. The Reds needed to find a more advanced stud if they were going to take a pitcher. Jered Weaver was there (and it turns out the Reds had the money for his bonus and instead gave it to Eric Milton). Thomas Diamond was there and, after a rough first few outings this season, he's tearing a hole in the Texas League. Looks like he'll be up in the majors to stay at some point in 2007. Bailey's still looking like 2009 or beyond if he ever puts himself together.

3) It was one of the worst scouting directors in history working for as inept a GM as you'll ever see who picked him. Terry Reynolds destroyed the Dodgers farm system that Branch Rickey built. That's practically a prisonable offense. Dan O'Brien proved time and again that he couldn't spot a talented pitcher to save his life (or his job for that matter). So we know Homer had hype. Lots of kids get hyped. But whose judgment is it we're really trusting here that Homer Bailey is the prep arm who'll beat the long odds against him and become the kind of pitcher that justifies the team's massive investment in him? Why it's really still the judgment of Reynolds and O'Brien. If that doesn't make you the least little bit nauseous then I don't know what will.

I don't mind that the Reds have Bailey. I look at him as an asset. Ideally I'd like to see the team move him in a package for an established major league pitcher because I'm not enamored with his results so far and years of mystery and peril between now and the point where he might reasonably be ready to pitch well in the majors does nothing for me. I'd much rather have a bird in the hand.

[rdiersin]

Originally Posted by cincyinco

You take the guy with the best possible ceiling, and I argue the Reds did exactly that when they selected Homer - highschool arm or not.

Do you? I don't know about that, I think there is a lot to drafting the guy who you think will reach his ceiling. Its not so cut and dry IMO, there are two aspects: the highest ceiling and who will make it there, and a delicate balance to play.

[Aronchis]

Originally Posted by M2

IMO, there's a number of reasons for the criticism:

1) He's been wildly overrated, both by people on this board and off. He doesn't work in the mid-90s like he was billed as doing, he doesn't have anywhere near the control he was projected as having. Supposedly he was a stud when he got drafted and for two years he's failed to deliver on that hype. I've seen stud pitchers come out of the prep ranks, not for the Reds so much, and Homer Bailey's not even a vague imitation of a real stud prospect pitcher. He's got some talent that he hasn't been able to translate effectively. I'm not even sure if it's "big" talent or that his absolute ceiling isn't a #3 starter.

I would think that even his biggest supporters would recognize how immensely frustrating he's been.

2) He was exactly what the Reds didn't need in the 2004 draft. The club lacked advanced pitching prospects and quality pitchers in the majors. Previous HS golden boy arms had washed out on the organization. The Reds needed to find a more advanced stud if they were going to take a pitcher. Jered Weaver was there (and it turns out the Reds had the money for his bonus and instead gave it to Eric Milton). Thomas Diamond was there and, after a rough first few outings this season, he's tearing a hole in the Texas League. Looks like he'll be up in the majors to stay at some point in 2007. Bailey's still looking like 2009 or beyond if he ever puts himself together.

3) It was one of the worst scouting directors in history working for as inept a GM as you'll ever see who picked him. Terry Reynolds destroyed the Dodgers farm system that Branch Rickey built. That's practically a prisonable offense. Dan O'Brien proved time and again that he couldn't spot a talented pitcher to save his life (or his job for that matter). So we know Homer had hype. Lots of kids get hyped. But whose judgment is it we're really trusting here that Homer Bailey is the prep arm who'll beat the long odds against him and become the kind of pitcher that justifies the team's massive investment in him? Why it's really still the judgment of Reynolds and O'Brien. If that doesn't make you the least little bit nauseous then I don't know what will.

I don't mind that the Reds have Bailey. I look at him as an asset. Ideally I'd like to see the team move him in a package for an established major league pitcher because I'm not enamored with his results so far and years of mystery and peril between now and the point where he might reasonably be ready to pitch well in the majors does nothing for me. I'd much rather have a bird in the hand.

He does work in the Mid-90's. During his HS days, he was pretty much 92-94 most of the time. Now he is about 92-95, good days he will hit 96-97.