Who is Redszone's #18 prospect?

[camisadelgolf]

#1 C Devin Mesoraco
#2 SS Billy Hamilton
#3 SS Zack Cozart
#4 RHP Dan Corcino
#5 RHP Robert Stephenson
#6 1B Neftali Soto
#7 OF Yorman Rodriguez
#8 2B Ron Torreyes
#9 OF Dave Sappelt
#10 UT Todd Frazier
#11 SS Didi Gregorius
#12 2B Henry Rodriguez
#13 LHP Tony Cingrani
#14 OF Juan Duran
#15 RHP Kyle Lotzkar
#16 3B Gabriel Rosa
#17 C Tucker Barnhart

[Kc61]

With the rumored trade to the Cubs for Marshall, supposedly involving Reds prospects, let's hope this list of top guys doesn't thin out even more in the next couple of days. My guess is that it will thin out.

[redsmetz]

Originally Posted by Kc61

With the rumored trade to the Cubs for Marshall, supposedly involving Reds prospects, let's hope this list of top guys doesn't thin out even more in the next couple of days. My guess is that it will thin out.

I saw speculation pop up in the Marshall thread, but I didn't see the word "prospect" used, rather "minor leaguers." Those are different animals in my book.

As an aside, I'm disappointed that Mace's suggestion adding a note to the bottom mentioning the spots that Alonso, Grandal & Boxberger held in this year's vote at the time of the trade. Someone asked why would we list Padres prospects, but I agreed with Mace on this. It gives historical reference to the actual votes this year's list, IMO.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by redsmetz

As an aside, I'm disappointed that Mace's suggestion adding a note to the bottom mentioning the spots that Alonso, Grandal & Boxberger held in this year's vote at the time of the trade. Someone asked why would we list Padres prospects, but I agreed with Mace on this. It gives historical reference to the actual votes this year's list, IMO.

It was just to spite you.

[redsmetz]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

It was just to spite you.

Well, bah humbug!

[dougdirt]

Going with David Vidal again. He has some pop. He has very good defense. He has a good hit tool. Needs to work on some plate discipline.

[mace]

Donald Lutz. He came on strong last year. redsof72 noted that he was the guy in the Dayton lineup whom other teams pitched around. Seems like he also has a significant upside, considering that he played a limited amount of baseball growing up in Germany. The reports on him involve tremendous power and impressive athleticism for a 235-pounder. The .301 BA and .358 OBP last year might be the pieces that complete the puzzle.

[The DARK]

Went with Garrett for his bonus, projectability, and athleticism. I need to see some results for Sulbaran beyond peripherals before i put him this high.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by The DARK

Went with Garrett for his bonus, projectability, and athleticism. I need to see some results for Sulbaran beyond peripherals before i put him this high.

But you don't need to see ANYTHING from Garrett?

[The DARK]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

But you don't need to see ANYTHING from Garrett?

He got a $1 million signing bonus, while Rosa got half of that despite being picked in the 2nd round. Could have been a supplemental if not for his high demands. Big, athletic lefties with a plus mid-90's fastball are hard to come by, and the projection for much more is there. Sometimes no stats are better than consistently underachieving stats, especially ones that took a dip towards the end of the year.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by The DARK

He got a $1 million signing bonus, while Rosa got half of that despite being picked in the 2nd round. Could have been a supplemental if not for his high demands. Big, athletic lefties with a plus mid-90's fastball are hard to come by, and the projection for much more is there. Sometimes no stats are better than consistently underachieving stats, especially ones that took a dip towards the end of the year.

I have no issue with the projectability part, just that you wanted to see more from Sulbaran and picked a guy who has shown nothing. Sulbaran has shown two above-average pitches and stretches where he can dominate. It also isn't much of a concern as to whether he is a starter. I have both guys ranked closely, so I get where you are coming from. Just the thought process was a bit confusing.

[The DARK]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I have no issue with the projectability part, just that you wanted to see more from Sulbaran and picked a guy who has shown nothing. Sulbaran has shown two above-average pitches and stretches where he can dominate. It also isn't much of a concern as to whether he is a starter. I have both guys ranked closely, so I get where you are coming from. Just the thought process was a bit confusing.

I'm basing my thought process more off of the fact that Sulbaran was in the mid-40's on the prospect list last year. A season of 4.60 ERA isn't enough to turn him from that into a significantly better prospect for me, especially in a year when so many other guys took a step forward. I don't doubt his potential and good arsenal, but he's had three seasons to turn that into some sort of success, and he hasn't. He's too streaky to look very imposing as a reliever either, so I've got him in the 30-35 range.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by The DARK

I'm basing my thought process more off of the fact that Sulbaran was in the mid-40's on the prospect list last year. A season of 4.60 ERA isn't enough to turn him from that into a significantly better prospect for me, especially in a year when so many other guys took a step forward. I don't doubt his potential and good arsenal, but he's had three seasons to turn that into some sort of success, and he hasn't. He's too streaky to look very imposing as a reliever either, so I've got him in the 30-35 range.

A 4.60 ERA in the California League.... That ranked 13th among qualified starters in the league. Now, not all pitchers stayed in the league long enough to qualify, so there is that at play too. But, the league's ERA was 4.89. So he was better than average while being young for the league.

As for where he was on this list last year.... That doesn't do much good this year. His stuff took a step forward. His control took a step forward. Those two combined took his game a big step forward. I think you are drastically underrating him if you have him in the 30-35 range.

[The DARK]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

A 4.60 ERA in the California League.... That ranked 13th among qualified starters in the league. Now, not all pitchers stayed in the league long enough to qualify, so there is that at play too. But, the league's ERA was 4.89. So he was better than average while being young for the league.

As for where he was on this list last year.... That doesn't do much good this year. His stuff took a step forward. His control took a step forward. Those two combined took his game a big step forward. I think you are drastically underrating him if you have him in the 30-35 range.

The 30-35 was before the trade, so he's moved up since then, into the high 20s. I respect the difficulty of the level, but there are just so many guys in the system competing with him right now, like Vidal, Lutz, Wright, Buckley, LaMarre, Crabbe, Waldrop and Phipps, all of whom I have above Sulbaran.

I compare Sulbaran to Crabbe; plus fastball and a plus secondary pitch, with a third as a work in progress. Both have great peripherals and K/BB rates, and struggle with inconsistency. The difference is that Crabbe put up better numbers than Sulbaran at the same level and the year before, and supposedly has better intangibles (though is a year or two older).

[mth123]

Originally Posted by The DARK

The 30-35 was before the trade, so he's moved up since then, into the high 20s. I respect the difficulty of the level, but there are just so many guys in the system competing with him right now, like Vidal, Lutz, Wright, Buckley, LaMarre, Crabbe, Waldrop and Phipps, all of whom I have above Sulbaran.

I compare Sulbaran to Crabbe; plus fastball and a plus secondary pitch, with a third as a work in progress. Both have great peripherals and K/BB rates, and struggle with inconsistency. The difference is that Crabbe put up better numbers than Sulbaran at the same level and the year before, and supposedly has better intangibles (though is a year or two older).

I'm on a similar page with Sulbaran vs. Crabbe. I think the two are very close and I have them as my two highest rated guys left. I have Crabbe a shade higher for the reasons you mentioned, but really wouldn't quibble with either one over the other. Given the now thin state of the Reds starting pitching depth, I hope both of these guys find that third pitch, get off to a fast start at AA and get themselves promoted to AAA and in line for a look if need be in the second half of 2012. That's probably a pipedream and 2014 might be more realistic (or they end up in the pen if that 3rd pitch never develops).