It has begun: BA Top 10 Prospects

[Shaknb8k]

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/organizationtop10/2006/

By far my favorite part of the offseason. I check this site every morning to see the updated Top 10 for each organization.

[vaticanplum]

Bah, I wish they'd take turns between the leagues. We've got seventy hundred years to wait before they do their Reds report.

[HokieRed]

Notice Bill Rowell is Orioles top prospect. He's the high-school kid we worked out before deciding on Stubbs.

[Shaknb8k]

Notice Bill Rowell is Orioles top prospect. He's the high-school kid we worked out before deciding on Stubbs.

If i remember correct many people on Redszone ripped the reds for even considering Rowell.

[chicoruiz]

Actually, I'm more intrigued by Kevin Goldstein's organizational top prospect reports at baseballprospectus.com. I really like the way he's structured them. Plus he seems to be going in alphabetical order starting with the NL, so we may not have long to wait.

[Shaknb8k]

Actually, I'm more intrigued by Kevin Goldstein's organizational top prospect reports at baseballprospectus.com. I really like the way he's structured them. Plus he seems to be going in alphabetical order starting with the NL, so we may not have long to wait.

Is it worth the $5 a month for the offseason? I really enjoy this stuff but cant really afford BA.

[edabbs44]

If i remember correct many people on Redszone ripped the reds for even considering Rowell.

That's because pitching should have been the choice.

Plan B was anyone but Stubbs.

[Patrick Bateman]

That's because pitching should have been the choice.

Plan B was anyone but Stubbs.

I disagree. I would have gone with Lincecum, but not because he's a pitcher.

With a draft, I think you have to go best player available. It's hard to tell what you need 5 years down the road, thus you shouldn't sacrifice talent for a current need IMO.

To me, Lincecum was the best talent available, and that's why I would have taken him. I can't fault the Stubbs picks simply because he's not a pitcher.

[edabbs44]

I disagree. I would have gone with Lincecum, but not because he's a pitcher.

With a draft, I think you have to go best player available. It's hard to tell what you need 5 years down the road, thus you shouldn't sacrifice talent for a current need IMO.

To me, Lincecum was the best talent available, and that's why I would have taken him. I can't fault the Stubbs picks simply because he's not a pitcher.

Small market teams need to build pitching the cheapest way possible. The draft is the main way to accomplish this. Good fielding CFs are much easier to acquire than good starting pitching.

[camisadelgolf]

Yeah, I think I'm with edabbs44. If I'm doing the draft, I draft pretty much nothing but pitchers. If you need hitting, just trade pitching. It's much easier to do that than the other way around.

[Superdude]

If I'm doing the draft, I draft pretty much nothing but pitchers. If you need hitting, just trade pitching.

Hitters are much less of a risk though. Why is that philosophy only for pitchers?

[chicoruiz]

Goldstein's BP list is up now on their website. I'm not going to quote from it because of the copyright stuff, but I guess I can at least mention that his organizational sleeper is Calvin Medlock, and he likes Stubbs better than a lot of RZ posters do.

It's interesting info and worth a big chunk of the yearly subscription cost in itself, IMHO.

[camisadelgolf]

Hitters are much less of a risk though. Why is that philosophy only for pitchers?

Hypothetically, let's say the average hitter hits .270 with 15 homeruns, six stolen bases and a .335 OBP.

Now, let's say the average pitcher has a 8-8 record with a 4.55 ERA with 100 strikeouts over 150 innings pitched.

Of course, these numbes aren't exact, but I think they're indicative of average. Anyway, a hitter with those kinds of stats is pretty good if you're a catcher or middle infielder, but if you're an outfielder or corner infielder, those numbers are kind of weak. In the current market, if you're putting up a 4.55 ERA over 150 innings every year, you're going to be worth more than the average hitter in 62.5% of the starting positions.

What I'm saying is this (and I did a terrible job of doing so): If you're an overall average hitter, you're going to be worth less than an average pitcher unless you're a catcher, second baseman, or shortstop. Therefore, the average pitcher is worth more. This is all the patience I have for typing right now. Hopefully I'll get a chance to proofread tomorrow and read about how little sense I made to everyone else.

Supply vs. Demand

[Superdude]

Interesting to see Loo, Watson, and Valaika ranked that high.

[Matt700wlw]

From Baseball Prospectus

Excellent Prospects
1. Homer Bailey, RHP
2. Jay Bruce, RF

Very Good Prospects
3. Joey Votto, 1B

Good Prospects
4. Drew Stubbs, CF
5. Johnny Cueto, RHP
6. Travis Wood, LHP
7. Sean Watson, LHP

Average Prospects
8. Milton Loo, SS/3B
9. Chris Valaika, SS
10. Paul Janish, SS

[HBP]

Interesting that Watson would be labeled "good" and Valaika "average"

[Aronchis]

I would break it down by being 'franchise players' 'good players' 'serviceable' players:
1.Franchise players: Bailey,Bruce

Obviously these represent the Reds "cream". Both have franchise ability, Bruce especially, Bailey is a bigger risk.

2.Good players: Wood,Cueto,Votto,Stubbs and Watson

These players have potential to be good players with long lasting starting ability down the road, but have a flaw here or there that keep them from being franchise.

3.Serviceable: Valakia,Loo,Janish,Anderson,Young and Gonzo

Talent to start or be a good bench player or a bullpen pitcher

4.The rest: raw, new draftee's.

[cincyinco]

Interesting to see Loo, Watson, and Valaika ranked that high.

Funny, I kind of thought Loo would be ranked higher... and Watson perhaps a bit lower since his debut was rather unremarkable.