Top Ten Starting Pitching Prospects

[mace]

What say you?

I guess I'd arbitrarily base this on the likelihood to win, say, 50-100 games in the big leagues, regardless of current readiness.

My uneducated, all-but-random guess, at the moment:

1. Bailey
2. Lotzkar
3. Sulbaran
4. Wood
5. Thompson
6. Fairel
7. Horst
8. Maloney
9. Hildenbrandt
10. Buck

Also considered: Guillon, Lecure, Snowden, Carroll, Ramirez, Viola (who apparently is no longer a starter but maybe should be) and Stewart (who is currently a starter but apparently shouldn't be)

[schmidty622]

Does Bailey still have prospect status in terms of his service time? Basically, would he still be eligible for rookie of the year consideration?

[lollipopcurve]

Like it. 4 lefties in the top 10 -- there's something new.

My general take is that apart from the "special" guys a more advanced pitcher is a better prospect than a less advanced one. So:

1. Bailey
2. Sulbaran (looks pretty special to me)
3. Lecure
4. Buck
5. Ramirez (still like him, though he's been up and down as a minor leaguer)
6. Maloney
7. Lotzkar
8. Wood
9. Fairel
10. Ravin

Could be there next: Horst, Castro, Partch
Not healthy enough: Thompson (also why Lotzkar is at #7)

Soon to be top 3, at least: 09 first-round draft choice

[dougdirt]

Bailey isn't a prospect and not ROY eligible.

[schmidty622]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Bailey isn't a prospect and not ROY eligible.

That's what I thought, and it makes the organizational pitching depth look a bit weaker.

[dougdirt]

I will go with 10 guys that I won't put in order for right now because I am not sure where everyone is health wise.

Juan Carlos Sulbaran
Matt Maloney
Jordan Smith
Daryl Thompson
Kyle Lotzkar
Dallas Buck
Travis Wood
Jeremy Horst
Evan Hildenbrandt
Ramon Ramirez

[JaxRed]

He may not be ROY eligible, but he's in the minors with essentially no major league service time, so certainly should be on our prospect lists.

[mace]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

Like it. 4 lefties in the top 10 -- there's something new.

My general take is that apart from the "special" guys a more advanced pitcher is a better prospect than a less advanced one.

I'd agree with that. The less-advanced guy still has to get to the point where the more-advanced guy already is.

I also agree that relative health plays a huge part in this. For somebody like Lotzkar, it's the difference between the top of the list and the bottom.

As to Bailey's prospect status . . . Whether or not he's an "official" prospect, he started the season in the minor leagues. For these purposes, I consider him to be a minor-leaguer whom the Reds are still trying to develop into a major-leaguer. That, to me, is a "prospect."

I'm probably giving in too quickly on Ramirez. A month ago, based on his call-up last year, I'd have had him in the top five. I couldn't believe that he wasn't given a fair shot to make the Reds' rotation in the spring. But something seems to have compromised him between September and now.

Lastly, I inadvertently left out Jordan Smith. Should have included him in the "consideration" portion, if not the bottom five. (Although he hasn't shown it so far this season.)

[SMcGavin]

Most likely to win 50-100 games in the bigs? Maloney. Highest ceilings? Lotzkar and Bailey.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by JaxRed

He may not be ROY eligible, but he's in the minors with essentially no major league service time, so certainly should be on our prospect lists.

In baseball terms, prospect means ROY eligible, with less than 150 AB's and less than 50MLB ip. If its a minor league starting pitcher list, then sure. But if its a prospect list, then Bailey just doesn't meet the requirements.

[Bumstead]

True, if you are writing a book or work for a prospect website. If you are just a bunch of Reds fans rating your 'up-and-coming' starting pitchers which you are calling prospects (because they are) then Bailey should count. He's not Freddie Garcia in the minors, he's 22 and can still be considered a prospect on this forum...in my opinion...otherwise, we are pretty thin at future starting pitchers in the organization...

Who cares about ROY anyway? Luckily for the Reds Volquez and Cueto are both young pitchers that are already up.

Bum

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

True, if you are writing a book or work for a prospect website. If you are just a bunch of Reds fans rating your 'up-and-coming' starting pitchers which you are calling prospects (because they are) then Bailey should count. He's not Freddie Garcia in the minors, he's 22 and can still be considered a prospect on this forum...in my opinion...otherwise, we are pretty thin at future starting pitchers in the organization...

Who cares about ROY anyway? Luckily for the Reds Volquez and Cueto are both young pitchers that are already up.

Bum

Ultimately it just comes down to how the word is defined in baseball circles. Someone is either a prospect or they aren't because the word has a set definition.

[Bumstead]

Amongst baseball writers and purists...not fans. Why quibble?

[*BaseClogger*]

The person quibbling is the one who wants to change the definition of a word...

[mace]

Originally Posted by SMcGavin

Most likely to win 50-100 games in the bigs? Maloney. Highest ceilings? Lotzkar and Bailey.

That's a good and fair distinction, and it's what makes this a thorny exercise. But yeah, it was based on the former. And given that, I probably should have ranked Maloney higher. But it's all so fleeting. If Ramirez puts together three good outings in a row, he's suddenly in the same category.