Yes, but Kazmir’s agent is Scott Boras and despite his usual creative (if not wacky) methods, Bowden got nowhere in early negotiations. The Reds had the No. 3 pick. It was abundantly clear they couldn’t sign Kazmir. And that’s also why Kazmir dropped to the Mets at No. 15.
So not taking Kazmir is not as blanket as it appears. Why did so many people pass on Matt Cain until the Giants at No. 25?
What is an indictment is that Gruler had a pre-existing arm injury and the Reds weren’t up to snuff on his condition. Or, worse, they chose to overlook the problem. Adam Loewen went to the Orioles at No. 4 and it was a bit of a surprise the Reds passed on him.
Here’s the scouting report on Gruler from Draft Day 2002:
“Good body. Large, raw-boned frame, similar to Jim Palmer. Fastball bores in on righties. Hard, tight-rotating curveball. Splitter with some sink, used as off-speed pitch. Mound presence. Great kid.”
Not Leatherpants’ fault. Blame Uncle Carl and John Allen. They wouldn’t cough up the signing bonus cash.
Bowden wanted to skirt the money issue by putting Kazmir on a major league contract and other assorted tricks. Boras didn’t want the player in Cincinnati, and he didn’t want him going on the cheap.
In the end, it was a pretty good stick-back to Boras when the Mets’ made the idiotic trade of sending Kazmir to Tampa for Zambrano.
Kazmir for Victor Zambrano may go down as one of the worst trades in history if he can stay healthy. The Mets were clearly not thinking when they pulled the triger on that one.
We could have taken a ton of guys over Gruler….
Fielder, Francis, Hamels, Cain etc
But we didnt. It happens. Everyone makes the wrong pick sometimes.
That whole draft was pretty much a waste. Other than Votto (who’s sweet), I don’t think there’s a single player that I’ve heard of (is Calvin Medlock (pick 1125) still around?
And apparently, we drafted Nick Markakis (now an OF with Baltimore), but as a pitcher. He went back in the draft the next year and the O’s took him #7 overall (as a hitter).
I came across this post and reply from an angree Yanks fan questioning to Bryan Smith of the Baseball Analysts: How can you rank Homer Bailey ahead of Phillip Hughes. Looking at their statistics side by side, Hughes’ numbers are better in every respect. And if you say that it’s the stuff that defines the greater prospect, the difference in stuff between Hughes and Bailey is minimal with Bailey having slightly more velocity although Hughes has a heavier ball. Further, if it is stuff that defines the prospect than I’m certain you can find a myriad of prospects who have the same stuff as Bailey and Hughes. The key than must be the marriage between stuff and control that translates into success and therefore the better prospect. Isn’t that the embodiment of Phillip Hughes? The remarkable maturity (pitching knowledge), super stuff, and superior control all combine to create one of the best pitching prospects we’ve ever seen. The part of that equation that Homer Bailey holds is super stuff and improving control. Taking into account the previous argument, you can only conclude that Phillip Hughes is indeed the better pitching prospect.
By a power of about eight million, this type of question (dealing with these two prospects) was the most popular I received, speaking to the fabulous intensity of Yankee fans. Still, its funny, because the difference between the two players is totally negligible. Both prospects are generational, both are top tier, and both project as aces in the Major Leagues (the only two in the minors). So, I don’t really think the individual ranking is important, but I will do Bailey the hnor of defending him, since he was ultimately my choice.
As far as “stuff” goes, I disagree with the question, I don’t think you can find other stuff like Bailey’s or Hughes’ in the minor leagues. Someone like Jason Neighborgall might have impressive raw stuff, but it doesn’t compare to these two players, as he has no idea where it is going. Say what you will about Homer Bailey’s command, but it hardly had an adverse effect on his performance in 2006. In the end, I decided to label the Reds prospect with the minors best stuff, and I again, I disagree with the e-mail about how he labels their fastballs. I would not say that Hughes has more life than Bailey, but instead more sink, as Bailey’s exploding four-seamer has plenty of life. I love Hughes’ two-seamer, however, so the fastball difference is about as negligible as their overall ranking.
But, again, why Bailey? What overcomes Hughes’ edge in command? Two things: breaking ball and health. Now, let me remind, I’m not claiming Hughes is poor in either category at all. His curveball is fantastic, but my reports of Bailey’s hook were phenomenal. The pitch might be a 75 on the 20-80 scouting scale soon, and it should generate a lot of swings-and-misses at the Major League level. While Hughes is long removed from past shoulder soreness, he is still more susceptible for future injury than Bailey.
Now listen: I believe Philip Hughes will not only pitch in the Majors in 2007, but I believe he’ll start admirably in the playoffs. I believe he will anchor the Yanks’ rotation for years to come. And I also believe the same for Homer Bailey’s, who has enough star power to reinvigorate the city of Cincinnati.
I’m not positive abot this but I believe 2002 was the worst year in Reds history for signing their draft picks. They just didn’t have the money. Didn’t come close on signing Markakis, who’s gonna be terrific.
And Chris, I remember that Bench comparison to Seaver. I wondered then, because Bench and Seaver didn’t get along that well, what John really meant by that comment.
But what Bowden said about taking Gruler was just BS and covering the organization’s ass because Bowden was pissed to no end that John Allen wouldn’t push for the cash to sign Kazmir, who would have been with the big league club by 2004 because of the lack of pitching in the system.
That was one of many ugly behind-the-scenes issues between Bowden and Allen about money and players.
Very interesting. Should be no surprise that Bowden’s answer wasn’t 100% true. He did mention “two schools of thought” about the pick. Gruler was a mid-round prospect who jumped on signability; Kazmir was a top 5 prospect who fell to #15 for the same reason. Still no clue what Bench was smoking. Even if he believed it, that’s a silly thing to say about a high school kid.
Chris, I know what Bench was saying but knowing some of his history with Seaver I naturally had a sidebar thought. Hahaha
The comparison to Seaver was about body size and form. Gruler is a big kid and his motion had a lot of Seaver–the back and leg drive, plus a mixture of pitches.
Only, Gruler had a bad shoulder that never fully recovered. Too bad. They thought they had him on track two springs ago. The kid is only 22-23.
It’s one of those sad stories in pro baseball that happens more often than the success stories.
It’s also the biggest reason why the MLB draft is easily the hardest one to judge. There are so many players taken all over the board, but unlike the other big two, the vast majority of these kids (including the first rounders) will never crack a big league roster.
On the plus side, Keith Law ranked the Reds’farm system as the fifteenth best in the majors. Not wonderful, certainly, but better than where they were a couple years ago.
The 2002 draft seems like it sucked….but the Reds got Votto and Denorfia out of that draft. Medlock is still around and performing very well in his new role as a reliever, and Camilo Vazquez is still around and having decent success. I am sure there have been worse drafts before that didnt produce a single major leaguer….. in fact the Reds 1989 draft was horrible. They had 4 draftees make the majors, only 1 with the Reds, who pitched all of 16.1 innings. Oh, the best pick they made that year was some SS out of Arizona named Trevor Hoffman…..
Did anyone see the rumor that Todd Helton might be leaving the Rockies? What are the chances he could end up hitting 50 HR in GABP, hopefully as a Red?
For his salary and recent injury history, I would bet none. A few years ago, I’d have wanted the Reds to jump all over a guy like Helton, but it seems that Helton is on a fast decline.
Always seems to be a few late-rounders who emerge. I wonder what percentage of an entire draft (not just a team’s, but the whole thang) ever plays a major league game? 2 percent? I don’t know….
2009 stats: Sarasota 2-1 8 Games 8 Games Started 42.1 IP 4.89 ERA 1.44 WHIP
Carolina 3-2 6 Game 6 Game Started 36 2/3 IP 2.95 ERA 1.09 WHIP
Louisville 2-2 5 Game 5 Game Started 29 IP 2.48 ERA 1.21 WHIP
RN Exclusives!
The Big Board -- In-Depth Reds Organizational Depth Chart (updated 2/23/10)
Salary Chart -- Our chart on the current and future contract status for the Reds roster (updated 2/23/10)
Loading ...
Anyone remember who Gruler was picked ahead of?
Scott Kazmir.
Yes, but Kazmir’s agent is Scott Boras and despite his usual creative (if not wacky) methods, Bowden got nowhere in early negotiations. The Reds had the No. 3 pick. It was abundantly clear they couldn’t sign Kazmir. And that’s also why Kazmir dropped to the Mets at No. 15.
So not taking Kazmir is not as blanket as it appears. Why did so many people pass on Matt Cain until the Giants at No. 25?
What is an indictment is that Gruler had a pre-existing arm injury and the Reds weren’t up to snuff on his condition. Or, worse, they chose to overlook the problem. Adam Loewen went to the Orioles at No. 4 and it was a bit of a surprise the Reds passed on him.
Here’s the scouting report on Gruler from Draft Day 2002:
“Good body. Large, raw-boned frame, similar to Jim Palmer. Fastball bores in on righties. Hard, tight-rotating curveball. Splitter with some sink, used as off-speed pitch. Mound presence. Great kid.”
Thaks, leatherpants.
Not Leatherpants’ fault. Blame Uncle Carl and John Allen. They wouldn’t cough up the signing bonus cash.
Bowden wanted to skirt the money issue by putting Kazmir on a major league contract and other assorted tricks. Boras didn’t want the player in Cincinnati, and he didn’t want him going on the cheap.
In the end, it was a pretty good stick-back to Boras when the Mets’ made the idiotic trade of sending Kazmir to Tampa for Zambrano.
The wrong Zambrano.
Kazmir for Victor Zambrano may go down as one of the worst trades in history if he can stay healthy. The Mets were clearly not thinking when they pulled the triger on that one.
We could have taken a ton of guys over Gruler….
Fielder, Francis, Hamels, Cain etc
But we didnt. It happens. Everyone makes the wrong pick sometimes.
But Johnny Bench said he was the next Tom Seaver…! Bowden also said in that article that “higher ceiling,” not signability, was the reason they went with Gruler over Kazmir.
That whole draft was pretty much a waste. Other than Votto (who’s sweet), I don’t think there’s a single player that I’ve heard of (is Calvin Medlock (pick 1125) still around?
And apparently, we drafted Nick Markakis (now an OF with Baltimore), but as a pitcher. He went back in the draft the next year and the O’s took him #7 overall (as a hitter).
I came across this post and reply from an angree Yanks fan questioning to Bryan Smith of the Baseball Analysts: How can you rank Homer Bailey ahead of Phillip Hughes. Looking at their statistics side by side, Hughes’ numbers are better in every respect. And if you say that it’s the stuff that defines the greater prospect, the difference in stuff between Hughes and Bailey is minimal with Bailey having slightly more velocity although Hughes has a heavier ball. Further, if it is stuff that defines the prospect than I’m certain you can find a myriad of prospects who have the same stuff as Bailey and Hughes. The key than must be the marriage between stuff and control that translates into success and therefore the better prospect. Isn’t that the embodiment of Phillip Hughes? The remarkable maturity (pitching knowledge), super stuff, and superior control all combine to create one of the best pitching prospects we’ve ever seen. The part of that equation that Homer Bailey holds is super stuff and improving control. Taking into account the previous argument, you can only conclude that Phillip Hughes is indeed the better pitching prospect.
By a power of about eight million, this type of question (dealing with these two prospects) was the most popular I received, speaking to the fabulous intensity of Yankee fans. Still, its funny, because the difference between the two players is totally negligible. Both prospects are generational, both are top tier, and both project as aces in the Major Leagues (the only two in the minors). So, I don’t really think the individual ranking is important, but I will do Bailey the hnor of defending him, since he was ultimately my choice.
As far as “stuff” goes, I disagree with the question, I don’t think you can find other stuff like Bailey’s or Hughes’ in the minor leagues. Someone like Jason Neighborgall might have impressive raw stuff, but it doesn’t compare to these two players, as he has no idea where it is going. Say what you will about Homer Bailey’s command, but it hardly had an adverse effect on his performance in 2006. In the end, I decided to label the Reds prospect with the minors best stuff, and I again, I disagree with the e-mail about how he labels their fastballs. I would not say that Hughes has more life than Bailey, but instead more sink, as Bailey’s exploding four-seamer has plenty of life. I love Hughes’ two-seamer, however, so the fastball difference is about as negligible as their overall ranking.
But, again, why Bailey? What overcomes Hughes’ edge in command? Two things: breaking ball and health. Now, let me remind, I’m not claiming Hughes is poor in either category at all. His curveball is fantastic, but my reports of Bailey’s hook were phenomenal. The pitch might be a 75 on the 20-80 scouting scale soon, and it should generate a lot of swings-and-misses at the Major League level. While Hughes is long removed from past shoulder soreness, he is still more susceptible for future injury than Bailey.
Now listen: I believe Philip Hughes will not only pitch in the Majors in 2007, but I believe he’ll start admirably in the playoffs. I believe he will anchor the Yanks’ rotation for years to come. And I also believe the same for Homer Bailey’s, who has enough star power to reinvigorate the city of Cincinnati.
I’m not positive abot this but I believe 2002 was the worst year in Reds history for signing their draft picks. They just didn’t have the money. Didn’t come close on signing Markakis, who’s gonna be terrific.
And Chris, I remember that Bench comparison to Seaver. I wondered then, because Bench and Seaver didn’t get along that well, what John really meant by that comment.
But what Bowden said about taking Gruler was just BS and covering the organization’s ass because Bowden was pissed to no end that John Allen wouldn’t push for the cash to sign Kazmir, who would have been with the big league club by 2004 because of the lack of pitching in the system.
That was one of many ugly behind-the-scenes issues between Bowden and Allen about money and players.
Very interesting. Should be no surprise that Bowden’s answer wasn’t 100% true. He did mention “two schools of thought” about the pick. Gruler was a mid-round prospect who jumped on signability; Kazmir was a top 5 prospect who fell to #15 for the same reason. Still no clue what Bench was smoking. Even if he believed it, that’s a silly thing to say about a high school kid.
Chris, I know what Bench was saying but knowing some of his history with Seaver I naturally had a sidebar thought. Hahaha
The comparison to Seaver was about body size and form. Gruler is a big kid and his motion had a lot of Seaver–the back and leg drive, plus a mixture of pitches.
Only, Gruler had a bad shoulder that never fully recovered. Too bad. They thought they had him on track two springs ago. The kid is only 22-23.
It’s one of those sad stories in pro baseball that happens more often than the success stories.
It’s also the biggest reason why the MLB draft is easily the hardest one to judge. There are so many players taken all over the board, but unlike the other big two, the vast majority of these kids (including the first rounders) will never crack a big league roster.
On the plus side, Keith Law ranked the Reds’farm system as the fifteenth best in the majors. Not wonderful, certainly, but better than where they were a couple years ago.
The 2002 draft seems like it sucked….but the Reds got Votto and Denorfia out of that draft. Medlock is still around and performing very well in his new role as a reliever, and Camilo Vazquez is still around and having decent success. I am sure there have been worse drafts before that didnt produce a single major leaguer….. in fact the Reds 1989 draft was horrible. They had 4 draftees make the majors, only 1 with the Reds, who pitched all of 16.1 innings. Oh, the best pick they made that year was some SS out of Arizona named Trevor Hoffman…..
Did anyone see the rumor that Todd Helton might be leaving the Rockies? What are the chances he could end up hitting 50 HR in GABP, hopefully as a Red?
For his salary and recent injury history, I would bet none. A few years ago, I’d have wanted the Reds to jump all over a guy like Helton, but it seems that Helton is on a fast decline.
Didn’t notice Denorfia on that list. Good catch, Doug. Still a lousy draft.
Always seems to be a few late-rounders who emerge. I wonder what percentage of an entire draft (not just a team’s, but the whole thang) ever plays a major league game? 2 percent? I don’t know….
I don’t know, but I’m bored enough at work to look into it.
Baseball America states that Gruler was paid the largest bonus in club history ($2.5M).
Does anyone know what Gruler is up to now? Is he playing for another organization?