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.
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 6, 2014 20:45:28 GMT -5
Just got the Prospect Handbook in. Figured I'd start a new thread, but see the following for prior discussion of the top 10 (or really, 11, given that we knew Ranaudo was 11): forum.soxprospects.com/thread/1458/Anyway, Top 31 with grades, organized into tiers by grade. I'd give less mind to the specific order as the grades. The BA grade isn't for Overall Future Potential, but rather a realistic ceiling and chance of reaching that ceiling. My comments in parentheses. 1. Xander Bogaerts, 70 Low (The only better grade is Byron Buxton's 75 Low. Only equivalents are Oscar Taveras and Masahiro Tanaka at 70 Low) ... (Other 70s: Medium: Baez, Bradley, Bryant, Correa, Sano; High: Bundy, Giolito, Gray) 2. Henry Owens, 60 High 3. Jackie Bradley, 55 Medium 4. Allen Webster, 55 High 5. Blake Swihart, 55 High 6. Garin Cecchini, 55 High 7. Mookie Betts, 55 High 8. Brandon Workman, 50 Safe (I'd have gone Low here. A 50 Safe should put him above Owens/JBJ based on the typical tiering.) 9. Matt Barnes, 55 High 10. Trey Ball, 65 Extreme (With the way these tend to tier, he should, in theory, be up with Owens and JBJ, but I get why he's here) 11. Anthony Ranaudo, 55 High 12. Christian Vazquez, 50 High 13 Manuel Margot, 55 Extreme 14. Brian Johnson, 50 High 15. Deven Marrero, 50 High 16. Bryce Brentz, 50 High 17. Drake Britton, 45 Low 18. Wendell Rijo, 50 High 19. Teddy Stankiewicz, 50 High 20. Rafael Devers, 55 Extreme 21. Cody Kukuk, 50 High 22. Jamie Callahan, 50 High 23. Daniel McGrath, 45 High 24. Simon Mercedes, 50 Extreme 25. Dan Butler, 40 Low 26. Travis Shaw, 45 High 27. Javier Guerra, 50 Extreme 28. Tzu-Wei Lin, 50 Extreme 29. Alex Wilson, 40 Low 30. Sean Coyle, 50 Extreme 31. Joe Gunkel, 45 High Other interesting notes, from the depth chart projections (again, these are long-term projections): - Cecchini is listed in left field. - So is Brentz. - The only RFs are Alex Castellanos and Aneury Tavarez. Interesting how that's kind of a hole now. Although I note Henry Ramos is in CF. - Jon Denney is listed at 1B. - Jamie Callahan is listed as a RHRP. Taking questions. |
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Feb 6, 2014 20:59:50 GMT -5
By chance of reaching that ceiling, do you mean chance of NOT reaching that ceiling, or rather their risk? I find it hard to believe that Lucas Giolito has a high chance of reaching his 70 ceiling while Bogaerts has a low shot.
Anyway, Cody Kukuk's ranking stood out to me. I remember how a lot of posters were more excited about him over Owens after the 2011 draft. He has tons of potential if he can, you know, learn how to throw a strike.
|
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 6, 2014 21:03:04 GMT -5
Agree with Charlie here. Seems like the qualifier means amount of risk in reaching that ceiling.
Kukuk stuck out to me, too. But 50 high? I think that means high risk of reaching that ceiling, not high liklihood.
|
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Feb 6, 2014 21:06:00 GMT -5
I think you guys can figure this one out...
|
|
|
|
Post by preston on Feb 6, 2014 21:12:36 GMT -5
Agree with Charlie here. Seems like the qualifier means amount of risk in reaching that ceiling. Kukuk stuck out to me, too. But 50 high? I think that means high risk of reaching that ceiling, not high liklihood. Right--It's the amount of riskiness attached to the grade. Xander is ranked above Baez, Sano, et al. with a 'low' risk label. JBJ is ranked above the other prospects with the same numerical grade with a 'medium' label rather than a 'high' label, and Ball is ranked below prospects with a lower numerical grade with an 'extreme' label, Workman with his 50 grade, Hatfield's entire post, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by jbberlo on Feb 6, 2014 21:54:10 GMT -5
Most suprising grade here to me is vazquez. Would not have thought of him as a high risk guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 6, 2014 23:09:04 GMT -5
Yeah obviously it's a risk factor. Sorry if my wording was inexact - should have said level of risk involved.
Safe>Low>Medium>High>Extreme
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 6, 2014 23:42:07 GMT -5
Most suprising grade here to me is vazquez. Would not have thought of him as a high risk guy. It's risk relative to the ceiling they give, not risk in general. The next step down here is likely 45 low. ADD, methinks risk is also the wrong word here, maybe unlikelihood is better. I like the new system but I think they should have used the opposites words for the probability factors. It's going to cause confusion when taken out of the context of an entire list. I have no clue what their logic on this wording is. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 7, 2014 0:07:15 GMT -5
Three thoughts upon first perusal:
1. No mention of Ty Buttrey.
2. I really think Workman over Barnes is crazy. I think I like Barnes a little more than most, but I'd be pretty surprised if he can't make it as a reliever, and his upside is certainly higher than Workman's.
3. I would like to think publications like BA wouldn't overvalue a cup of coffee in the majors, especially from on a second-year pro jumping straight from Double-A, but I really think they are too low on Bradley and I can't think of any other reason why. His ceiling is an All-Star and his downside is what? I'd say something between a second division starter and the greatest fourth outfielder in the history of civilized man.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 7, 2014 1:40:03 GMT -5
Three thoughts upon first perusal: 1. No mention of Ty Buttrey. 2. I really think Workman over Barnes is crazy. I think I like Barnes a little more than most, but I'd be pretty surprised if he can't make it as a reliever, and his upside is certainly higher than Workman's. 3. I would like to think publications like BA wouldn't overvalue a cup of coffee in the majors, especially from on a second-year pro jumping straight from Double-A, but I really think they are too low on Bradley and I can't think of any other reason why. His ceiling is an All-Star and his downside is what? I'd say something between a second division starter and the greatest fourth outfielder in the history of civilized man. My opinion. 1. agree EDIT: but think the omission of Diaz is a much bigger miss. 2. crazy is too extreme 3. agree, I would have him at 60 high, I think his Pawtucket numbers get overlooked too much. An .842 OPS for a CF on his first, advanced age go-round at AAA is impressive. I also think he will steal a few more bases as his baseball knowledge rises through experience and he starts detailing out his game. ADD: I would have given Devers a 60, extreme and I like the placement of Margot, it's somewhat visionary. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 7, 2014 2:34:02 GMT -5
The Sox have 25 prospects with major league average or better ceilings. I'm guessing there's nobody close to that. Hypothetical 25 man roster, LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 7, 2014 5:26:39 GMT -5
Not to belabor it (or to belabor it). Comparing his pitching coach's June 30th description of Diaz' repertoire to Sox Prospects profile. Fastball: SP: Fastball sits 89-92 mph and hits 94 mph. Abbot: The last few times out, he's had good life on the fastball and been able to angle it down to the bottom of the zone..... sits between 92-95 mph now, and has become more effective as the 6-foot-3 Diaz has gotten better at working the pitch down in the zone. Slider: SP: Also throws a solid slider at 82-84 mph Abbot (similar): His slider was good with sharp, late break and good command Change: SP: has a changeup in development. Abbot: He's always had an outstanding changeup...."It really complements his fastball and even more so the last few times out," Abbott said. "It mirrors his fastball. It's a good, swing-and-miss change-up with good arm speed that drops away from lefties, and he uses it against right-handers as well......"He has very good arm speed with a good change of pace on the velocity. Even if they're remotely possibly looking for the change, there's enough movement for him to get away with it." Everything about his numbers over the entire year pretty much aligns with Abbot's description and they are very impressive. He appears to be commanding an excellent 3 pitch mix and I can't understand how that is going unnoticed. He's only 21 and threw 8 innings of shutout ball in the Salem Red Sox opening playoff game. What does he have to do to get noticed  ? m.milb.com/news/article/2013063052340054/with_three_pitches_diaz_steers_gem_for_driveADD: Of the Red Sox starters, only John Lackey had better K/BB numbers and that was close. |
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Feb 7, 2014 6:14:32 GMT -5
I agree that missing Luis Diaz on top 30 is wrong. To me he is a lot similar to Brandon Workman. He can really locate 91~94 mph fastball while his secondary pitches are not special. Both slider and changeup are just average pitches. Still he could be a back end starter or spot starter at the highest level with refining secondary pitches. He needs conditioning his body, which looks similar to Felix Doubront.
|
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Feb 7, 2014 9:12:42 GMT -5
On BA's most recent podcast, John Manuel specifically mentioned Workman's safe grade. Essentially, a safe means that he's already reached his ceiling in the big leagues. Brandon Workman pitched the 8th inning of the clinching game of the World Series; we'd be a damned greedy bunch of fans if we were quibbling that.
Also: DON'T GET WORKED UP ABOUT EXACT SPOTS!!!!!! Amazingly they mention that in the podcast, too.
Why are you guys arguing about Barnes being ranked 1 spot behind Workman? Look at it in a "grouping" manner. Chris tried to do that for everyone, but it's been missed by a few. 4-11 are interchangeable depending on progress, stagnation, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 7, 2014 9:43:50 GMT -5
Three thoughts upon first perusal: 1. No mention of Ty Buttrey. 2. I really think Workman over Barnes is crazy. I think I like Barnes a little more than most, but I'd be pretty surprised if he can't make it as a reliever, and his upside is certainly higher than Workman's. 3. I would like to think publications like BA wouldn't overvalue a cup of coffee in the majors, especially from on a second-year pro jumping straight from Double-A, but I really think they are too low on Bradley and I can't think of any other reason why. His ceiling is an All-Star and his downside is what? I'd say something between a second division starter and the greatest fourth outfielder in the history of civilized man. My opinion. 1. agree EDIT: but think the omission of Diaz is a much bigger miss. 2. crazy is too extreme 3. agree, I would have him at 60 high, I think his Pawtucket numbers get overlooked too much. An .842 OPS for a CF on his first, advanced age go-round at AAA is impressive. I also think he will steal a few more bases as his baseball knowledge rises through experience and he starts detailing out his game. ADD: I would have given Devers a 60, extreme and I like the placement of Margot, it's somewhat visionary. I don't actually think the exclusion of Buttrey is a miss by BA, I think it's a really bad sign. I didn't actually say that though, so the confusion was my fault. Why are you guys arguing about Barnes being ranked 1 spot behind Workman? Look at it in a "grouping" manner. Chris tried to do that for everyone, but it's been missed by a few. 4-11 are interchangeable depending on progress, stagnation, etc. I think Barnes is better than Workman. If they are in groups, I would put Barnes in a higher group than I would put Workman. In a grading system, I'd give Barnes a B+ and Workman a B/B-. I didn't miss the point, I simply disagree. Just because they say the rankings aren't necessarily the be-all and end-all doesn't mean I have to think they are right. EDIT: If they'd put Barnes one ahead of Workman, and said Workman was just as good, I'd have disagreed with that too. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 7, 2014 10:26:28 GMT -5
Plus, if we aren't here to break this stuff down way more then it should be, why are we here?
That being said, I disagree (w/James) on Workman vs Barnes. I understand the point about Barnes floor being a reliever etc, but I do t view Workman as a nonstarter. I think he can start in the majors, but he may not get his opportunity just yet due to circumstances. Or maybe not at all. Due to the team having no rotation spots and him being ready now he may get broken in as a reliever. Then if he takes to that roll really well he could get stuck there as the other guys mature and spots open up. It's almost as if being first could hurt his chances of being a starter.
|
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Feb 7, 2014 10:49:40 GMT -5
I would have imagined that they would have been a little more bold with the extreme risk ceilings.
|
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Feb 7, 2014 22:11:23 GMT -5
I just got my book yesteday I am so pumped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 8, 2014 10:59:47 GMT -5
On BA's most recent podcast, John Manuel specifically mentioned Workman's safe grade. Essentially, a safe means that he's already reached his ceiling in the big leagues. Brandon Workman pitched the 8th inning of the clinching game of the World Series; we'd be a damned greedy bunch of fans if we were quibbling that. Also: DON'T GET WORKED UP ABOUT EXACT SPOTS!!!!!! Amazingly they mention that in the podcast, too. Why are you guys arguing about Barnes being ranked 1 spot behind Workman? Look at it in a "grouping" manner. Chris tried to do that for everyone, but it's been missed by a few. 4-11 are interchangeable depending on progress, stagnation, etc. I listened to the podcast and the player discussed was Brandon Cumpton of the Pirates, who was graded a 45 Safe, not Workman. They also mentioned that the only thing keeping Bogaerts from getting a 70 Safe was the question of what position he'd play. I actually disagree with that reasoning both in that being the reason (is it his fault if he COULD be a SS, but isn't there because of how the team is constructed? Are they insinuating that the Sox's continued rumored interest in Drew is b/c they aren't convinced he can play SS?) and that he has "shown his realistic ceiling" in the majors, given that .364 slugging when he was up. I'd wait to go with Safe until the power arrives (which I think it will). It feels like they're really still feeling out the grades thing. They mention that in this, their third year doing them, they're still feeling it out. Seems like there was a concerted effort to use more of the scale this year, particularly with the risk factors. They barely used the "Safe" factor last year - seems like they're trying to trot it out more. |
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Feb 10, 2014 11:35:29 GMT -5
They talk about Workman later on in the podcast; I forget which segment, though. It stuck out because Manuel specially mentioned that he pitched the 8th inning of the clinching game of the World Series.
|
|
|
