SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Law's Org Rankings...Sox #5
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Jan 28, 2014 11:46:29 GMT -5
"5. Boston Red Sox They rival Houston for the best top 10 of any team, with as many prospects on the top 100 as the Astros have, and while they don't have Houston's depth, Boston's system is pretty deep, with at least a half-dozen pitching prospects who reasonably project (that is, not just pie-in-the-sky forecasting) as No. 4 starters or better. And that ignores the part about their best prospects being position players who hit and most of whom play very good defense. When a defensive whiz like Christian Vazquez, a catcher who can hit a little, can't crack your top 10, you're doing a lot of things right." insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10354393/houston-astros-top-farm-system-rankings-mlbteams ahead... 1. Houston Astros They have depth and they have a couple of high-ceiling guys at the top of the system, getting close to the point where the light at the end of the tunnel 2. Minnesota Twins The Twins have more high-end talent...They have a pair of potential future MVP candidates in Byron Buxton and Miguel Sano, with more power arms than this system has had in ages. 3. Pittsburgh Pirates ... landing the best prep hitter in last year's class in Austin Meadows, while several prospects already in the system took huge steps forward into my overall top 20. 4. Chicago Cubs The Cubs are absolutely loaded with bats, ... they could have one of the NL's best offenses by 2016. and of course... 20. New York Yankees It seemed like everyone who mattered in this system got hurt in 2013, and of those who didn't most had disappointing years. The good news is every one of the injured prospects should be healthy to start 2014 (except Slade Heathcott, for whom "healthy" is an abstract concept), but it also means the Mason Williamses and Tyler Austins of the system will run out of excuses if they don't hit. A strong day one draft class in 2014 -- when they had three of the top 33 picks -- helped boost the system. |
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 28, 2014 11:56:56 GMT -5
Sounds about right for the Sox; I think the top 5 are pretty close and then things start to drop a little. Yankees are too high, imo, but whatever. Where are the Rays in his ranking?
|
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Jan 28, 2014 12:16:56 GMT -5
Ray's stock...SELL!
23. Tampa Bay Rays
Years of good trades helped keep the Rays near the top of the list since I started compiling these rankings, but they've been crushed by the graduations of Wil Myers and Chris Archer last year plus several unproductive drafts -- when Kevin Kiermaier and Tim Beckham reached the majors in September, they were the first players drafted and developed by the Rays to suit up for the team since David Price and Matt Moore from the 2007 draft.
The Rays have been hurt by on-field success that gives them lower picks and limits their draft and international bonus pools, but they haven't fared well even within those limits...
harsh but true
|
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Jan 28, 2014 12:35:02 GMT -5
Sounds about right for the Sox; I think the top 5 are pretty close and then things start to drop a little. Yankees are too high, imo, but whatever. Where are the Rays in his ranking? The Rays have the weakest system that I can remember for them in the past ten years. They have had to deal with having a successful team for a while now and it is starting to make it's way through the system. They had a remarkable run of great drafts and a seemingly endless supply of prospects for a while now... but they have had a few years in a row now of not really hitting big prospects. I speculate that they will be around 15 or so in the middle of the pack. I agree that the Yanks system is ranked a bit high on this list, but all their prospects at the lower levels could justify the placement of them by mid season. Right now however, I'm just not seeing it... the upside of most prospects there are terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Jan 28, 2014 12:38:16 GMT -5
Ray's stock...SELL! 23. Tampa Bay Rays Years of good trades helped keep the Rays near the top of the list since I started compiling these rankings, but they've been crushed by the graduations of Wil Myers and Chris Archer last year plus several unproductive drafts -- when Kevin Kiermaier and Tim Beckham reached the majors in September, they were the first players drafted and developed by the Rays to suit up for the team since David Price and Matt Moore from the 2007 draft. The Rays have been hurt by on-field success that gives them lower picks and limits their draft and international bonus pools, but they haven't fared well even within those limits... harsh but true I'm sorry, but the Rays system is not worse than the Yankees right now. The Yanks system is horrible right now on all levels |
|
|
|
Post by prangerx on Jan 28, 2014 13:19:32 GMT -5
I do think teams that graduating prospects to "decimate their systems" actually isn't a bad thing. I mean if these young players are productive major league players under 25 and not considered prospects anymore, you're still doing something right. Obviously Tampa will have trouble down the line if they can't restock their system. But they could make future trades like the ones that have covered for their bad drafts. As of right now they have enough high quality young talent to compete for several years. They are in a lot better long term shape than the Yankees.
|
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 28, 2014 15:12:46 GMT -5
Sounds about right for the Sox; I think the top 5 are pretty close and then things start to drop a little. Yankees are too high, imo, but whatever. Where are the Rays in his ranking? Even more amazing is that the four systems that rank higher are driven by players that the Red Sox never had a chance to acquire by virtue of their draft position Astros (4) Correa, Springer, Appel, Foltynewicz Twins (2) Buxton, Stewart. Pirates (1) Taillion Cubs (3) Almonte, Bryant, Baez |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jan 28, 2014 15:15:41 GMT -5
While it's hard to believe that the Rays rank so low, consider this;
That's a looooong time to go without producing a MLB player.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 28, 2014 16:33:50 GMT -5
That factoid's a little misleading ... Matt Moore was a rookie in 2012 who debuted with one start in 2011. So, really, a more accurate sentence would be, "When Kevin Kiermaier and Tim Beckham reached the majors in September, they were the first players drafted and developed by the Rays to suit up for the team since Matt Moore debuted in 2011 before his rookie campaign in 2012." But that's not very dramatic sounding, is it?
Still, though, it's not a good system right now at all, and they haven't drafted well recently, for sure. But we'll have to see what they do with David Price before sounding the death knell of the Rays player development system.
|
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 28, 2014 17:29:15 GMT -5
Sounds about right for the Sox; I think the top 5 are pretty close and then things start to drop a little. Yankees are too high, imo, but whatever. Where are the Rays in his ranking? The Rays have the weakest system that I can remember for them in the past ten years. They have had to deal with having a successful team for a while now and it is starting to make it's way through the system. T hey had a remarkable run of great drafts and a seemingly endless supply of prospects for a while now... but they have had a few years in a row now of not really hitting big prospects. I speculate that they will be around 15 or so in the middle of the pack. I agree that the Yanks system is ranked a bit high on this list, but all their prospects at the lower levels could justify the placement of them by mid season. Right now however, I'm just not seeing it... the upside of most prospects there are terrible. Not really. Besides the two no-brainers in Price and Longo, they haven't even been great in the draft. Matt Moore was an impressive find, Cobb and Hellickson are nice pitchers, but we're going back almost a decade for some of those guys. And in recent years they've been pretty awful. They completely blew it in 2011 despite a deep draft class and, what, 12 top 100 picks? |
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 28, 2014 18:11:04 GMT -5
They completely blew it in 2011 despite a deep draft class and, what, 12 top 100 picks? That was quite memorable, even at the time that draft was inexcusable no matter what. |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jan 28, 2014 18:14:17 GMT -5
That factoid's a little misleading ... Matt Moore was a rookie in 2012 who debuted with one start in 2011. So, really, a more accurate sentence would be, "When Kevin Kiermaier and Tim Beckham reached the majors in September, they were the first players drafted and developed by the Rays to suit up for the team since Matt Moore debuted in 2011 before his rookie campaign in 2012." But that's not very dramatic sounding, is it? Still, though, it's not a good system right now at all, and they haven't drafted well recently, for sure. But we'll have to see what they do with David Price before sounding the death knell of the Rays player development system. As a point of comparison, Sox players drafted since 2007 and playing for us include Lavarnway, Weiland, Workman, Wilson* and JBJ. It's surprising that the Rays haven't had an injury backup, bullpen guy, or role-player come from those drafts yet. On the other hand, they could be drafting young guys who just aren't up yet, I'd have to check. *is there an alphabetic drafting inefficiency? Scouts for most teams get through T or U on their schedule before they run out of time? Perhaps the Sox' scouts are starting at Z and working backwards... |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 28, 2014 19:20:29 GMT -5
Cobb is more then a nice pitcher IMO - he's a solid number 2 or will prove to be. Hard to hand a title like that at this stage but he's real good. So is Moore
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 28, 2014 22:17:26 GMT -5
Cobb was also drafted eight years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 29, 2014 9:19:58 GMT -5
Yea wasn't defend g the Rays system just thought he was underselling Cobb.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 29, 2014 13:52:40 GMT -5
What do they mean when they talk about depth of a farm system. Are they saying players in the low minors or players outside of the top 10? Either way the Sox are strong in both cases. SP 11-17 I would typically profile as top 10 prospects in other systems, and we had a good 2013 talent adding Ball, Denney, Stank, Sheffield ans Smith in the draft with Devers in international.
Side bar, is it just me or are Ball and Denney being judged to harshly for the extremely small sample size they had as professionals. Everyone drafted before Ball is in top 3-4 of their system and top 100 overall. Denney is ranked next to Smith and Littrell on SP and behind Stank, but he was regarded much much higher than all three pre draft. he only had 74 AB's.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 29, 2014 14:01:31 GMT -5
Generally depth refers to the players not in the organizations top five or 10 prospects. This is a place where the Red Sox really do shine. They have 18 or 19 players who I wouldn't be surprised to see make an All-Star team someday. Of course some of them will bust, and others will do their best work in other uniforms, but players like Brentz and certainly Marrero are borderline Top-10 in most organizations.
Ball made MLB.com's Top 100. A lot of people haven't seen him yet, and he was considered a high-risk/high-reward player from day one, so it makes sense that people aren't judging him. I don't think anyone would be shocked to see him make the Top 50 next year, even those who didn't rank him yet. Denney, apparently, scouted fairly poorly after his pro debut. So it isn't just about the stats for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Jan 30, 2014 21:02:21 GMT -5
Generally depth refers to the players not in the organizations top five or 10 prospects. This is a place where the Red Sox really do shine. They have 18 or 19 players who I wouldn't be surprised to see make an All-Star team someday. Of course some of them will bust, and others will do their best work in other uniforms, but players like Brentz and certainly Marrero are borderline Top-10 in most organizations. Ball made MLB.com's Top 100. A lot of people haven't seen him yet, and he was considered a high-risk/high-reward player from day one, so it makes sense that people aren't judging him. I don't think anyone would be shocked to see him make the Top 50 next year, even those who didn't rank him yet. Denney, apparently, scouted fairly poorly after his pro debut. So it isn't just about the stats for him. This is a great point. The sox have deep depth. I don't know much about other orgs, but you could take the current top 10 away, and you would have a group of prospects left about equal to most of the previous decade or so lists. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 30, 2014 22:53:24 GMT -5
I don't know much about other orgs, but you could take the current top 10 away, and you would have a group of prospects left about equal to most of the previous decade or so lists. I wouldn't go that far. At all. |
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 30, 2014 23:10:24 GMT -5
True but the Red Sox 11 to 20 would still be ahead of a few teams 1 to 10 lists but of course Milwaukee doesn't set a very high bar.
|
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 30, 2014 23:15:02 GMT -5
I don't know much about other orgs, but you could take the current top 10 away, and you would have a group of prospects left about equal to most of the previous decade or so lists. I wouldn't go that far. At all. The Red Sox 11-20 would be bottom 5 in baseball. The depth is solid, but not extraordinary. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 31, 2014 2:22:50 GMT -5
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,980 
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 31, 2014 7:49:42 GMT -5
I don't know much about other orgs, but you could take the current top 10 away, and you would have a group of prospects left about equal to most of the previous decade or so lists. I wouldn't go that far. At all. The trick would be to find a weak year for the Sox and stack up the 1-10 against the current 11-20. I think you have to go further back than the history of Soxprospects. Try 92 and 93 here, where only Aaron Sele, Scott Hatteberg and Scott Cooper stand out: www.thebaseballcube.com/prospects/?T=5&Page=Team |
|
|
|
Post by Carolinasimo on Jan 31, 2014 15:36:33 GMT -5
While it's hard to believe that the Rays rank so low, consider this; That's a looooong time to go without producing a MLB player. that is ALMOST impossible to do. |
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jan 31, 2014 17:17:42 GMT -5
I wouldn't go that far. At all. The trick would be to find a weak year for the Sox and stack up the 1-10 against the current 11-20. I think you have to go further back than the history of Soxprospects. Try 92 and 93 here, where only Aaron Sele, Scott Hatteberg and Scott Cooper stand out: www.thebaseballcube.com/prospects/?T=5&Page=Team99 through 02 were pretty weak (though that may be hindsight), and you could argue with mid-range sight that 09-10 came out fairly weak. |
|
|
