Time to blow it up!

[Sea Ray]

And the funny thing about that is ... just as fast as they fell in this "ranking" they can also just as quickly ascend back. It's a poll (LOL).

If all our prospects - even a kid in Rookie Ball - are "top prospects", then it's reasonable to say that we still have plenty left in our system. Yet somehow, other then Trammell, trading away low-ball players who weren't even in the top 100 of MLB prospects at the time, somehow emptied, decimated, this farm system. Just don't see it.

I'm still waiting for you, or anyone, to give me the name(s) of the teams that followed that strict path and have a title? Yet with you the farm system has one goal, restrictive - to build this fantasy "super team" whose line-up is primarily comprised of elite, developed prospects. After all, it's easy, just "basic math". Give me team names. I see a lot of great prospects excelling around MLB - especially on teams with post-season aspirations - but only a few, overall, per team. What's the majority of their roster comprised of?

Simple question - In today's game, what is the right formula for building a winning team?

I'll start by answering your question: Houston Astros, KC Royals. Those are two excellent models to follow. When you "suck", trade veterans for prospects. Draft and develop well and when you're on the cusp of contending, trade prospects for someone to get you over the top like Cueto and Verlander. In the case of Verlander it was particularly advantageous 'cause he was controlled for more than a yr.

Now here's my question: What team has the model of trading prospects for one yr rentals when they're in last place?

[REDREAD]

They don't need to be great at every position, but as things stand right now, other than 3B, I expect this current group of players to be below average at every position.Who will be the above average or even average reds at the other spots?

Good question, and I don't necessarily disagree.
Votto and Galvis are the best bets to be above average next year (in addition to Suarez). Outside chance that Aquino makes an adjustment and gets back on fire again (I don't want to say either way). But not a given that any of the three pull it off.

The Reds really need an impact bat in the OF. That means (likely) parting with one of the young OF. Redszone will be in agony when that trade happens, but it needs to be done.

[Kc61]

I don't get too excited about team rankings 'cause a Reds #9 prospect could be #25 in SD or #2 in the Texas Rangers. Regardless of where they rank at the time of the trade, if they become top 100 in less than a yr then they're talented prospects. I would not be surprised if Moss makes it to the top 100 soon. If he does then we really have to acknowledge that there's a problem in the Reds front office. They're either overpaying for one yr rentals or they're undervaluing their own prospects or they're not developing them properly.

All trades, of prospects or veterans, are subject to the team’s evaluation of talent. If the Reds misjudged the talent level of any player, traded or received, that’s a negative.

Where I disagree is with the template: “Reds should never trade a good prospect for a one-year player.” This is the kind of thing I’ve bee reading and I disagree.

Nothing wrong with the template of the LA trade. Basically a year of Puig and Wood plus Farmer for non-top 100 prospects rated around 8-12 on the Reds list. (Assume Kemp/Bailey a wash.)

Closer call with the template of trading Trammel (plus Moss/Puig) for Bauer. TT was listed as a top top Reds prospect. Bauer a highly considered vet SP but only for 1 full season plus.

In both cases, though, it turns on the team’s particular talent evaluation and how it eventually turns out.

[Tom Servo]

I don't get too excited about team rankings 'cause a Reds #9 prospect could be #25 in SD or #2 in the Texas Rangers. Regardless of where they rank at the time of the trade, if they become top 100 in less than a yr then they're talented prospects. I would not be surprised if Moss makes it to the top 100 soon. If he does then we really have to acknowledge that there's a problem in the Reds front office. They're either overpaying for one yr rentals or they're undervaluing their own prospects or they're not developing them properly.

He turns 25 in two weeks and has never been known for having great pure stuff, the odds of this happening are very low.

[MM83]

Small market Teams that are 90-95 loss clubs can’t trade their top prospects for short term rentals

I don’t understand why this is difficult to comprehend

They need to prove they can be competitive with their core group intact, then strategically spend money on FAs when the club is ready to compete.

The reds are not ready to compete.

[Tom Servo]

Small market Teams that are 90-95 loss clubs can’t trade their top prospects for short term rentals

I don’t understand why this is difficult to comprehend

They need to prove they can be competitive with their core group intact, then strategically spend money on FAs when the club is ready to compete.

The reds are not ready to compete.

I think you should tell us 20 more times that you don't like the trades, you obviously haven't made that clear yet.

[MM83]

I think you should tell us 20 more times that you don't like the trades, you obviously haven't made that clear yet.

Name a time where a small market, 90 loss team traded a decent portion of their top prospects for 1 year rentals and turned into a playoff contender.

[Kc61]

Small market Teams that are 90-95 loss clubs can’t trade their top prospects for short term rentals
.

Thanks for the post, it graphically shows the kind of rigid formulation that no team can possibly follow. Particularly the use of “top prospect” which is subject to the team’s own evaluation of the young player.

[Tracy Jones]

I liked the trades, but now I don’t because the Reds didn’t win the World Series because of them.

[MM83]

Thanks for the post, it graphically shows the kind of rigid formulation that no team can possibly follow. Particularly the use of “top prospect” which is subject to the team’s own evaluation of the young player.

It’s never worked in the history of modern baseball. It’s so stupid of an idea, that’s why.

Yet you’re here telling everyone how smart of a strategy it is. Lol

[Kc61]

Name a time where a small market, 90 loss team traded a decent portion of their top prospects for 1 year rentals and turned into a playoff contender.

Nm

[Tracy Jones]

It’s never worked in the history of modern baseball. It’s so stupid of an idea, that’s why.

Yet you’re here telling everyone how smart of a strategy it is. Lol

What should they have done instead?

[Sea Ray]

All trades, of prospects or veterans, are subject to the team’s evaluation of talent. If the Reds misjudged the talent level of any player, traded or received, that’s a negative.

Where I disagree is with the template: “Reds should never trade a good prospect for a one-year player.” This is the kind of thing I’ve bee reading and I disagree.

Nothing wrong with the template of the LA trade. Basically a year of Puig and Wood plus Farmer for non-top 100 prospects rated around 8-12 on the Reds list. (Assume Kemp/Bailey a wash.)

Closer call with the template of trading Trammel (plus Moss/Puig) for Bauer. TT was listed as a top top Reds prospect. Bauer a highly considered vet SP but only for 1 full season plus.

In both cases, though, it turns on the team’s particular talent evaluation and how it eventually turns out.

Have you ever seen another last place (or bad ) team use this template? I think it's unheard of and for good reason

[M2]

Name a time where a small market, 90 loss team traded a decent portion of their top prospects for 1 year rentals and turned into a playoff contender.

Not 100% the same, but in 2013 the Royals traded the #4 rated overall prospect (Wil Myers) and two other top 100 prospects (Jake Odorizzi and Mike Montgomery) for two years of James Shields (and Wade Davis, who would fail in the rotation in 2013, then succeed wildly in the bullpen afterward). The Baseball commentariat class had a collective freak out over the deal and demanded Dayton Moore be fired on the spot. The Royals improved from 72-90 to 86-76. The next season they went to the World Series. The season after that (when they churned Shields' salary slot and eventually traded more top prospects for short-term guys) they won the World Series.

[Sea Ray]

He turns 25 in two weeks and has never been known for having great pure stuff, the odds of this happening are very low.

Do you think Travis Wood is a good comp? I do and if he's only that good, how often does a LH SP like that come up through the Reds system? Prior to Wood, maybe Tom Browning?

What LH SPs in our system rank higher? Lodolo. Anyone else?