thumbs still bad?

[Highlifeman21]

Gruler over Kazmir hurt. Deeply.

Stubbs over Lincecum opened old wounds.

I remain pessimistically hopeful (yeah, that's oxymoronic, I know) that we'll get the 2008 1st Round Pick right. Krivsky was 0 for. Let's see what Jocketty can do.

[Oxilon]

Is this a thread regarding Devin Mesoraco or 'Hindsight is 20/20'? We can complain all we want about how we botched the 2002 and 2006 amateur MLB draft picks, but it's pretty pointless and leads us nowhere.

Should we have drafted Kazmir over Gruler in 2002. Hindsight says yes. But lets consider a few things first. At the time of the draft, Gruler too, was a coveted HS pitching prospect and was easily regarded as a top 5 pick. It's unfortunate that injuries derailed his baseball career, but such is so in life and in the MLB amateur draft.

Let us also remember that we're not the only team to pass up on Kazmir. Eleven teams passed on Kazmir after us, and for the exact same reason; Kazmir was a Boras client who naturally was going to have 'signability issues.' Granted several teams after us managed to land good players helping them right now, but that's neither here or there. Bottomline, Kazmir came with a flag that the Reds and eleven other teams didn't want to risk. Yes, Kazmir was a top pitching prospect coming out of high school, but with a high possiblity of Kazmir either underperforming or blowing his arm out, how would the Reds FO feel if they just blew multi-millions of dollars on a pitcher that wouldn't even sniff the majors?

Regarding Linecum, yes he put up beastly numbers in U Wash, but let's also consider that he's pushing 5'10'' and is barely 180 lbs. Let's also remember that his mechanics are somewhat harsh and not easy going. When you're evaluting prospects, you have to look that risk of injury since these kids are still usually atleast 2 years away from ever contributing to the major league club and are about to start abusing there arms much more so than they ever did in the high school and/or college.

They call hindsight 20/20 for a reason. Yes the Reds could have picked a better player here or there looking back at it. But that's why they call the MLB draft a crapshoot because that's exactly what it is. And don't you think they're teams that are pissed they passed up on Jay Bruce and Homer Bailey? All I gotta say is it flows both ways and no team is perfect.

[cincyinco]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

Gruler over Kazmir hurt. Deeply.

Stubbs over Lincecum opened old wounds.

I remain pessimistically hopeful (yeah, that's oxymoronic, I know) that we'll get the 2008 1st Round Pick right. Krivsky was 0 for. Let's see what Jocketty can do.

It never ceases to amaze me.

You're calling Mesoraco a miss after 1 half year in rookie ball? 30ish AB's in Dayton? You've picked a bone on Stubbs forever too. I am not meaning to take a shot at you, but the impression I get is that you might just have a bone to pick, period.

Its way too early to write off Mesoraco OR Stubbs for that matter. I'm not trying to argue with you about the Reds history of bad drafting. That is blatently obvious and staring everyone in the face. I just think its the epitome of being inane writing off a prospect out of HS, after a 1/2 year of rookie ball while playing with noted injuries.

You think we'd have learned lessons with players like Rosales, Bailey, Bruce, etc - every prospect has a different developement curve or path - and you need to view that prospect in a window of more than 1 year. Because as with Rosales, they go up and down from year to year - people on redszone were calling him a better prospect than Homer Bailey at one time. Bailey has flashed dominant stuff, and regressed. Bruce is unstoppable. And we STILL don't know how any of those guys are really going to turn out. As with any prospect, writing them off after struggles in their initial career is foolish.

For as much as Small Sample Size is touted around here, it sure gets junked and thrown to the wayside when we talk about prospects in the minor league forum.

When, oh when are we going to be more prudent in our prospect evaluations here on Redszone? Because all logical, basic prospect evaluation method's fly out the window here at RedsZone when evaluating our own.

Word to the wise, following prospects is a game for those with patience. Not those who want immediete results. Those who dominate and continue to do so from the get go are the exception. Not the rule.

[podgejeff_]

Originally Posted by M2

You're relatively new around here, but at the time of the 2006 draft there was a sizable contingent on this board who were aghast that the Reds passed on Lincecum for Stubbs. Stubbs' offensive issues were known and Lincecum oozed stuff. Higher ceiling, closer to the majors, more complete package? A large number of us would have answered Lincecum in June 2006.

I wasn't aware the Lincecum was considered more of an impact draft, but I can still understand from the Reds POV why they'd take Stubbs. If he met his potential fully (rare in the minors, I know), we'd have a power hitting, gold glove CF. Scouts have to love him for a reason.

Couple that with Lincecum, an impact but one with weird mechanics, and a past history of arm blowouts on our part, and it makes sense.

[princeton]

Originally Posted by cincyinco

I just think its the epitome of being inane writing off a prospect out of HS, after a 1/2 year of rookie ball while playing with noted injuries.

I'm sure that we won't be cutting Stubbs or Mesoraco anytime soon, and it makes little sense to trade either since they don't have value.

but you also have to be sober about their chances, which are low, and plan accordingly. These two players should not make us forego shopping for a catcher or for a center fielder with righthanded power. to ignore those weaknesses in the system because of the presence of Stubbs and Mesoraco would be inane

it would also be inane to not visit the process by which these two players were selected by the Reds scouting department, as well as the process by which Terry Reynolds chose Jay Bruce. As Seinfeld says, "why can't we still have this, but also that?"

[lollipopcurve]

Simplified some, in my opinion the process should be this:

1. Give the scouting department an extra 5 million a year, give or take, split between domestic and international.

2. Rule out 0 players based on signability.

3. Rule out 0 players based on position or age.

4. Have good scouts.

5. Get multiple looks from multiple people at players who will cost a lot.

6. Let the scouting department run the draft.

Do all that, and there are still no guarantees.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by cincyinco

It never ceases to amaze me.

You're calling Mesoraco a miss after 1 half year in rookie ball? 30ish AB's in Dayton? You've picked a bone on Stubbs forever too. I am not meaning to take a shot at you, but the impression I get is that you might just have a bone to pick, period.

Its way too early to write off Mesoraco OR Stubbs for that matter. I'm not trying to argue with you about the Reds history of bad drafting. That is blatently obvious and staring everyone in the face. I just think its the epitome of being inane writing off a prospect out of HS, after a 1/2 year of rookie ball while playing with noted injuries.

You think we'd have learned lessons with players like Rosales, Bailey, Bruce, etc - every prospect has a different developement curve or path - and you need to view that prospect in a window of more than 1 year. Because as with Rosales, they go up and down from year to year - people on redszone were calling him a better prospect than Homer Bailey at one time. Bailey has flashed dominant stuff, and regressed. Bruce is unstoppable. And we STILL don't know how any of those guys are really going to turn out. As with any prospect, writing them off after struggles in their initial career is foolish.

For as much as Small Sample Size is touted around here, it sure gets junked and thrown to the wayside when we talk about prospects in the minor league forum.

When, oh when are we going to be more prudent in our prospect evaluations here on Redszone? Because all logical, basic prospect evaluation method's fly out the window here at RedsZone when evaluating our own.

Word to the wise, following prospects is a game for those with patience. Not those who want immediete results. Those who dominate and continue to do so from the get go are the exception. Not the rule.

Krivsky missed badly with Stubbs. Eventually the glass 1/2 full contingent will realize that fact. I've said my piece ad nauseum about why Stubbs is a bust, and the only argument used by the other camp is "wait and see". Wait and see is nice, but the Stubbs selection hurt the Reds as an organization, b/c Stubbs is on a ridiculously slow developmental curve (after playing 3 years in the Big XII @ Texas, mind you) and the Reds needed to take 1. the best available talent on the board at the time (which they didn't), and 2. a guy that can help them before 2011 (at the earliest). So they badly missed the boat, and the organization suffers b/c of the pick.

As for Mesoraco, he was arguably the best available on the board, but Krivsky attempted to draft for need, which is a no no. That's why I consider his selection the 2nd whiff for Krivsky. Mesoraco's injury's also haven't helped his cause in my book, since he's now in the Gary Majewski category of Reds, aka damaged goods. Hopefully Mesoraco gets healthy, turns the corner and will turn around his young career, but to date IMO, he's Krivsky's 2nd, and thankfully last, bust.

I don't have anything against Stubbs or Mesoraco, like I did with Gruler. With Gruler, it was personal. We missed badly with Gruler, and I hated Gruler b/c of it. I remember reading about his injuries in the Enquirer, and a morbid smile formed on my lips. I was happy, on some level. But as for Stubbs and Mesoraco, I give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they'll eventually positively contribute as Reds, but I'm not going to hold my breath. I'm going to write them off as misses by Krivsky, and look ahead hoping Jocketty will draft better than Krivsky. I can't imagine how Jocketty could do any worse...

[princeton]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

Krivsky missed badly with Stubbs. Eventually the glass 1/2 full contingent will realize that fact....

I don't think that the glass 1/2 full contingent will acknowledge it. But it's important to understand these things early.

If Krivsky's SD drafts Lincecum, then Krivsky might still have a job. Now WayneK's gone, but the guy that he hired still works here.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

He is hitting .159 in May. Part of it is bad luck, part of it is the strikeout rate. Still, if his BABIP were close to normal his OPS would likely be at least 150 or so points higher than it is for the month.

Hit BABIP was .470 in April. In May, it has been .244. Maybe this is more normalization than bad luck.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by M2

You're relatively new around here, but at the time of the 2006 draft there was a sizable contingent on this board who were aghast that the Reds passed on Lincecum for Stubbs. Stubbs' offensive issues were known and Lincecum oozed stuff. Higher ceiling, closer to the majors, more complete package? A large number of us would have answered Lincecum in June 2006.

I was on the Scherzer bandwagon.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Oxilon

Is this a thread regarding Devin Mesoraco or 'Hindsight is 20/20'? We can complain all we want about how we botched the 2002 and 2006 amateur MLB draft picks, but it's pretty pointless and leads us nowhere.

Should we have drafted Kazmir over Gruler in 2002. Hindsight says yes. But lets consider a few things first. At the time of the draft, Gruler too, was a coveted HS pitching prospect and was easily regarded as a top 5 pick. It's unfortunate that injuries derailed his baseball career, but such is so in life and in the MLB amateur draft.

Let us also remember that we're not the only team to pass up on Kazmir. Eleven teams passed on Kazmir after us, and for the exact same reason; Kazmir was a Boras client who naturally was going to have 'signability issues.' Granted several teams after us managed to land good players helping them right now, but that's neither here or there. Bottomline, Kazmir came with a flag that the Reds and eleven other teams didn't want to risk. Yes, Kazmir was a top pitching prospect coming out of high school, but with a high possiblity of Kazmir either underperforming or blowing his arm out, how would the Reds FO feel if they just blew multi-millions of dollars on a pitcher that wouldn't even sniff the majors?

Regarding Linecum, yes he put up beastly numbers in U Wash, but let's also consider that he's pushing 5'10'' and is barely 180 lbs. Let's also remember that his mechanics are somewhat harsh and not easy going. When you're evaluting prospects, you have to look that risk of injury since these kids are still usually atleast 2 years away from ever contributing to the major league club and are about to start abusing there arms much more so than they ever did in the high school and/or college.

They call hindsight 20/20 for a reason. Yes the Reds could have picked a better player here or there looking back at it. But that's why they call the MLB draft a crapshoot because that's exactly what it is. And don't you think they're teams that are pissed they passed up on Jay Bruce and Homer Bailey? All I gotta say is it flows both ways and no team is perfect.

Hindsight is the most accurate way to truly grade a GM's performance, both on the big team or in the draft. I'd rather have a draft look awful at the time and be great in hindsight than vice versa.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by M2

So far he's all caution flags.

Why must you hate?

What's Pennsylvania ever done to you?

[dougdirt]

Here is my issue....

Why do some people use the fact that it wasn't the guy they wanted to be so negative on the guy we actually took?

My quote from draft day 2006: I will take anyone but Drew Stubbs.

Yet I get slammed on here for supporting Drew Stubbs. Why? I don't have a clue. I see where he can put himself and help the Reds. Others seem to hate on him because he isn't in the majors like others are that were drafted before/after him. Now that isn't everyone, but its the feeling I get from a whole lot of people on him.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Here is my issue....

Why do some people use the fact that it wasn't the guy they wanted to be so negative on the guy we actually took?

My quote from draft day 2006: I will take anyone but Drew Stubbs.

Yet I get slammed on here for supporting Drew Stubbs. Why? I don't have a clue. I see where he can put himself and help the Reds. Others seem to hate on him because he isn't in the majors like others are that were drafted before/after him. Now that isn't everyone, but its the feeling I get from a whole lot of people on him.

It's not because it wasn;t the guy they wanted. It has to do with current performance in comparison to other comparable picks.

I wanted Scherzer. I definitely didn't want Stubbs at the time, but I thought they could have done worse.

Now I dislike the pick even more. Not because it wasn't Scherzer, but because he hasn't worked out yet and others that they passed up could be helping the team right now.

What I don't agree with is looking at the rest of the draft and saying that they missed out on all of the guys who have "worked out" to this point. It is fair, however, to look at guys who were projected as top 10-15 talents and were passed up. Three obvious ones are Joba, Lincecum and Scherzer.

[OnBaseMachine]

I was a huge fan on Tim Lincecum and I was quite shocked when the Reds passed on him for Stubbs (who was the last guy I wanted). Though it still angers me to this day that the Reds passed on Lincecum in favor of Stubbs, it doesn't prevent me from still rooting for Stubbs and hoping he pans out.