Prospect Rankings

[BigRapidsJackass]

Roxpert --

I think you do use a 2nd overall draft pick on such a low-ceiling pitcher if:

-- his signing bonus is going to be on the order of what a 15th overall pick might get

-- he'll be able to provide almost immediate help (think Huston Street).

The problem with Reynolds is that he fit neither of the above descriptions. He wasn't exactly dominating in college, and everyone seems to agree that he's got a fair bit of work to do before he'll be MLB ready.

So yes, it was a wasted pick.

Longoria would've certainly been a reasonalbe choice. I liked Lincecum because I think he fits category (2) as a reliever ... and that's exactly where I think he'll wind up: as the Giants closer as soon as the All Star Break.

[Below C-Level]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Reynolds doesn't "miss bats", and is regarded as a #3/#4 type starting pitcher prospect.

Fair enough. Brandon Webb doesn't miss bats either. Neither does Chien Ming Wang. Reynolds doesn't have Webb's sinker, but Webb isn't 6'7" with an extreme downward plane.

Maybe he's a reach, maybe he's not. My point is you can't say one way or another right now. I have no doubt signability was a factor in the pick, but that doesn't make it a de facto bad pick. I see no reason to label him a bad pick when he has made 11 pro starts and gone less than 50 innings and the K/9 ratio isn't as troubling when you consider that he's given up exactly 1 HR.

[Below C-Level]

There's no question that Reynolds isn't the sexy pick at #2, but I think that misses the point. It's easy to look at his 7-6 record and K/9 ratio and say he wasn't dominant, but take a look at what he was...

Here are the WHIPs for the top 5 pitchers selected in last year's draft:

Luke Hochevar 1.13
Greg Reynolds 1.17
Brad Lincoln 0.96
Brandon Morrow 1.15
Andrew Miller 1.14

Notably, Reynolds pitched in a top conference and beat both Morrow and Lincecum head to head.

I think when you look at how dominant he was in the Cape with wooden bats, and look at that in the context of his success in his short pro stint, you can see why he's got a tremendously high ceiling even if he'll never hit 98 on the gun or strikeout 250 in a season.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by Below C-Level

I think when you look at how dominant he was in the Cape with wooden bats, and look at that in the context of his success in his short pro stint, you can see why he's got a tremendously high ceiling even if he'll never hit 98 on the gun or strikeout 250 in a season.

"Tremendously high ceiling"? That flies in the face of everything I've read about him (excluding from you). You are also self-selecting a stat (WHIP) that makes Reynolds APPEAR to be right in there among the elite pitching draft pick alternatives available to us. Also noticed you cut the list off before getting to Lincecum, and ignored your own prior statement about how small the sample size was for Reynolds, etc.

In other words, you seem to be trying to convince YOURSELF that Reynolds is a high-ceiling prospect. You haven't convinced any of us, so I suppose that's the next best use of your time.

[Below C-Level]

Roxpert, you flatter yourself. With all due respect, I care very little whether I'm able to convince you of anything...

You're right about one thing, though: if you're engaged in preemptive criticism of moves that will likely never be made, no amount of objective evidence or attributed quotes to the contrary are going to convince you of anything. I can see why such things would be of little interest to you.

[Heltonfan]

The list of above-average major league starting pitchers with K rates anywhere near as bad as Reynolds':

Cook, Aaron
Wang, Chien-Ming

That's all.

Every organization has a handful of guys with good stuff and terrible K rates who they're hoping will turn into the next Cook or Wang. Very, very few of them pan out. And note that the best-case scenario, in which they actually do become Cook or Wang, still leaves them far short of acehood (don't mention Brandon Webb; his K rate is almost double Cook's. There's no comparison at all).

In other words, based on his statistical profile, Reynolds probably has a 5-10% chance to turn into an above-average major league SP. He does, however, have a pretty good shot at becoming a Suppanesque innings eater.

And he's got a great chance to never have any big league value at all. His low HR rate at Modesto last year was almost certainly a sample size fluke. His groundball rate was above average, but nowhere near good enough to support a rate of just 1 HR in 49 IP; in fact, there's no pitcher in the game whose groundball rate is high enough to support a HR rate that low. Reynolds' college stats also indicate that his HR prevention ability, while good, is a far cry from the Wang/Cook level.

My guess is that Reynolds, compared to the overall pool of MLB pitchers, will end up in around the 10th percentile in K rate, 65th percentile in BB rate, and 75th percentile in HR rate. That's a nice asset to have around, a solid option for the back of the rotation - but his ceiling is incredibly low.

It's simply not logically consistent to say that Reynolds has a tremendously high ceiling unless you think he'll dramatically improve his K rate. And I'm not saying it's impossible for him to do so... but it's not something I've seen anyone claim, either.

[Below C-Level]

To be honest, I was actually surprised to see that I said "tremendously high ceiling" when I went back and looked at it. I think he's got a pretty good chance to develop into a heck of a nice big league pitcher, but I don't see the Mark Prior comparisons either.

That said, I think he's an interesting case. The fact that he's 6'7", durable, aggressive, has a terrific make-up and three quality big league pitches makes him more than just another minor league arm with a low K/9 ratio.

[Heltonfan]

Some more stats on Reynolds. The vast differences in schedule strength across conferences make it tough to interpret college statistics, but one thing we can do, to control for both schedule strength and park factors, is to compare pitchers to their teammates.

I'm presenting two sets of numbers from 2006. The first is Reynolds, the second is the Stanford pitching staff as a whole:

K/9: 7.61, 7.13
BB/9: 2.26, 3.11
HR/9: 0.49, 0.67
H/9: 8.32, 9.97
FIP: 3.03, 3.68
ERC: 2.60, 3.64

So Reynolds was above his team's averages across the board, as we would expect from a first-round draft pick. But not by a huge margin. And Stanford was a sub-.500 team (in a tough conference, of course, but still...).

Can we absolutely condemn Reynolds as a future #5 starter? Of course not. Can we say that all the evidence in the world points to Longoria and Lincecum as better prospects, and did so on draft day as well? Yes, I think we can.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by Below C-Level

Roxpert, you flatter yourself. With all due respect, I care very little whether I'm able to convince you of anything...

As I said, by writing so much flattering praise about Reynolds, you seem to be trying to convince yourself, not me. I and others here have already examined his numbers and reports on him, so it's clear you'll have little impact in influencing our view of his ceiling.

You're right about one thing, though: if you're engaged in preemptive criticism of moves that will likely never be made, no amount of objective evidence or attributed quotes to the contrary are going to convince you of anything. I can see why such things would be of little interest to you.

I am nothing but an objective analyst of baseball and the Rockies. The Rockies' track record allows me to make presumptive statements about what they are likely to do before it actually happens, such as adding rather useless veteran (i.e. OLD) parts to the 25-man roster. But I'm all ears to be convinced otherwise, and hope they don't repeat past mistakes.

[hiaspire]

RotoWorld put out their top 10 Rockies prospects and I like that order better than the BA one.

1. Tulo
2. Hirsh
3. Stewart
4. Iannetta
5. Morales
6. Jimenez
7. Fowler
8. Reynolds
9. Koshansky
10. Baker

With the next 5 of: Nelson, Morillo, Herrera, Rivera, Corpas

I might switch Jimenez/Fowler but that's pretty reasonable ordering overall. It also mentioned this year being huge for Stewart (of course) but in a way that hasn't been discussed as much with him possibly being a trade target. Especially if Atkins and Hawpe/Baker are playing well and the team is playing better and looking to make a big trade to support that improvement.

[Heltonfan]

Agreed - that's a much better list. Fowler is right where he should be - the other lists had him ahead of more advanced guys with comparable upside (Stewart, Jimenez), which makes no sense (Iannetta is a different story; there's a semi-defensible philosophical position that allows for the ranking of Fowler above the "low-ceiling" Iannetta, even if I completely disagree with it).

Hirsh ahead of Iannetta is rather baffling, even though both Goldstein and BA agree. He's no more advanced right now than Iannetta is, and he's a year older. Banking on the upside of a 25-year-old (an age where, in general, one shouldn't expect further improvement in pitchers) is an awfully iffy proposition.

[hiaspire]

Lots of Rockies in Baseball America's Top 100 - more than anyone else:

15 TROY TULOWITZKI, ss, Rockies
Reached the majors 14 months after signing, a franchise record for a position player
Opening Day Age: 22. ETA: 2007

30 FRANKLIN MORALES, lhp, Rockies
Few lefthanders can match his mid-90s fastball or power curveball . .
Opening Day Age: 21. ETA: 2008 (risk factor)

42 JASON HIRSH, rhp, Rockies
Acquired from the Astros in the Jason Jennings deal, he should be nearly as effective at a fraction of the cost
Opening Day Age: 25. ETA: 2007

46 IAN STEWART, 3b, Rockies
Worst year of his pro career still included .803 OPS as 21-year-old in Double-A
Opening Day Age: 21. ETA: 2008

48 DEXTER FOWLER, of, Rockies
Five-tool center fielder has added switch-hitting, strength and polish since signing
Opening Day Age: 21. ETA: 2009

76 GREG REYNOLDS, rhp, Rockies
Quibble with his strikeout rate if you must, but he has stuff, size, command, makeup . . . and he wins
Opening Day Age: 21. ETA: 2008

84 UBALDO JIMENEZ, rhp, Rockies
Kept pace with Felix Hernandez until he came down with a stress fracture in his shoulder in 2004
Opening Day Age: 23. ETA: 2007

92 CHRIS IANNETTA, c, Rockies
Offensive-minded catcher gives Colorado eight players on this list, more than any other club
Opening Day Age: 23. ETA: 2007

[hiaspire]

From the top 100 chat related to the Rockies:

Taking into account that the all factors, which system would you most like to have right now? I know the Rockies have the most top 100, and the D-Rays are rated the top system, but take into account the divisions and everything else, what GM would you want to be the most as of now?

A: Jim Callis: I would want the Devil Rays farm system over any other. But if you're asking me to look at the divisions and pick a spot where I have a better chance to win, I'd rather be in the NL West and take the Rockies system.

I think I have to agree with him there. So there is some reason for optimism I believe, but they have to make it happen soon. I bet there are at least a handful of other GMs around baseball who would also name the Rockies as one of the best situations they would pick. I don't think they'd have a shortage of candidates (despite the budgetary issues) because farm directors around the league will love the talent and believe there is a competitive hope in the division just like Callis's answer if he had to pick anywhere he'd want to be.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by hiaspire

From the top 100 chat related to the Rockies:



I think I have to agree with him there. So there is some reason for optimism I believe, but they have to make it happen soon.

Of course I'd rather be the Rockies than the Devil Rays. Who wouldn't? Would you rather compete with the Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays every year? The Rox, as unsuccessful as they are, have it much better than the Orioles or Devil Rays since they aren't in the "mega-franchise" division.

Callis wasn't giving as much of an endorsement of the Rockies as he was giving a negative outlook at the challenges that a franchise in the AL East confronts.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Of course I'd rather be the Rockies than the Devil Rays. Who wouldn't? Would you rather compete with the Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays every year? The Rox, as unsuccessful as they are, have it much better than the Orioles or Devil Rays since they aren't in the "mega-franchise" division.

Callis wasn't giving as much of an endorsement of the Rockies as he was giving a negative outlook at the challenges that a franchise in the AL East confronts.

I didn't read it as you can ONLY pick the Rox or D-Rays. Those were his suggestions because they are the top two teams by far in terms of prospects. But pick any team you would want to head up in reality given all the real conditions faced.

Taking into account that the all factors, which system would you most like to have right now? ...what GM would you want to be the most as of now?

Absolutley you are right about the troubles with being in the AL East, but I think it was a greater endorsement of the Rockies situation if he'd pick that place above all others. Even beyond that one quote and different interpretations of the answer, I think many GMs and talent observers might pick Colorado as well as one of their top choices in all the game.