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.
How Strong is the System?
|
Post by jmei on May 27, 2014 20:24:29 GMT -5
Did you read the rest of his post? His issue is not being critical of the front office, it's doing so on the basis of completely unrealistic standards.
|
|
|
Post by ajs1994 on May 27, 2014 20:25:30 GMT -5
Two first division starters per year, and they can't struggle initially or have injury/durability issues. Over a 6-7 year period you'd have an entire lineup and rotation of cost controlled above average players. That's not reasonable? We're Red Sox fans, we deserve it.Cannot agree more. Even the best systems need to import talent, either via trade or free agency. It's way too much to ask for a team of guys who succeed initially. If this is your expectation, no team in baseball will come close. Especially a big market team that has starters already entrenched in their lineup. But if that is your expectation, we are going to be overhyped year in and year out.
|
|
|
Post by bighead on May 27, 2014 20:47:42 GMT -5
This is not a discussion but trolling. If a "healthy farm system" produces two players per year how much does a top farm system produce? Just curious if you would be able to provide examples of a "healthy farm system" using this criteria. Citing failure on unrealistic absolute terms is meaningless. How about providing evidence of the Sox average or poor farm system on a relative basis? Show us examples using your objective criteria of top farm systems and how the Sox system is significantly underperforming those systems. So anyone who questions the establishment is a troll? What's your day job - Vladimir Putin's Minister of Propaganda? So anybody not blasting the establishment is a fanboy? See, I can do it too. Discounting is the age old method of trying to win an argument without any points...
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 27, 2014 21:12:43 GMT -5
OK, so I think we've established that most of the problem here is completely unrealistic expectations. Oilcan, it also reads to me like your expectations (the "hype" you speak of) were also a bit unrealistic regarding some of the specific players.
But I was thinking about this on the way home, and I think there is a somewhat valid point to make here: It's not that the current system is lacking. It's that the system of 2-3 years ago really didn't produce anything. Consider the SoxProspects top 10 from mid-season 2011:
1. Ryan Kalish - sidetracked by injuries before he could contribute in Boston 2. Anthony Ranaudo - still in the minors 3. Felix Doubront - he's been good enough to be a major league starter, but his recent struggles (and frustrating inability to figure it out completely despite flashes) probably make it easy to forget he's already a 5.1 fWAR player. 4. Jose Iglesias - Instrumental last year, but traded in the Peavy deal, so now out of sight, out of mind. 5. Yamaico Navarro - Attitude issues got him shipped out when he could have been a useful utility infielder. Replacement level in the bigs. 6. Will Middlebrooks - jury is still out here. Major league line of .248/.296/.448 isn't one that necessarily would have surprised anyone paying attention at that point though. 2.3 fWAR 7. Josh Reddick - he's a major league starter, but the return here was Bailey who didn't help at all. 8. Kyle Weiland - Sidetracked by injuries after being traded for Melancon, who was then traded for Hanrahan and Holt 9. Ryan Lavarnway - Trajectory is headed in the wrong direction. 10. Bryce Brentz - see above
So from the system top 10 in 2011, the major league club has basically gotten Doubront, Middlebrooks's flashes, Iglesias's hot streak, Jake Peavy, and Brock Holt. If you extend it to the top 20, you get whatever Britton and Wilson have contributed, plus Bogaerts's contributions, which might be the third-best thing they've gotten so far and are at least top four.
That's not a ton of production three years out. A huge part of the problem is how Cherington got fleeced on the Oakland, Houston, and Pittsburgh deals. Not getting actual production from Kelly and Rizzo, for example, has been ok in comparison because they've at least returned (and continued to return) useful players (or perhaps cap space, in that Gonzalez was used to free up the Beckett and Crawford money).
It's not fair to judge the present farm system based solely on the fact that TEH SAVIOR isn't sitting in Pawtucket to come save the day like Iglesias and Bogaerts did at times last year. It's much fairer to look back a few years and see if the system has produced much. I think that's probably the real issue for those who may want to place blame on the system.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on May 27, 2014 21:39:04 GMT -5
I can't shake the feeling of what could have been with Ryan Westmoreland. He showed super-star glimpses in his brief minor league career. I think he could have a made a quick ride through the minors like Bogaerts did years later.
Thankfully he doing well and has been able to battle through.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 27, 2014 22:16:47 GMT -5
Is that an awful top 10 relative to the rest of the league, though? Let's add some comparative analysis here. The 2011 Red Sox farm system was ranked 17th by Baseball America. How much value has their farm system contributed relative to the teams ranked in that neighborhood? Methodology: I'm ignoring trades here, because that introduces a ton of extra variables and is kind of irrelevant to our ultimate question (how good was the farm system in retrospect). I'm going to use career fWAR to calculate player value because it's pretty much as good a one-stop-shop stat we have and I can look it up quickly. I'm going to ignore negative WAR values. I'm going to use BA's 2011 pre-season top 10s for the sake of uniformity. Note: there is a problematic bias towards systems which had a lot of MLB-ready prospects who have had more opportunity to rack up MLB value to date than guys who are just now reaching the majors. But there's no good way to correct for that, and oilcansman has noted that production means more than hype, so we'll just stick to looking at MLB production to date. Here are the results: Angels (15th): Trout (24.3), Chatwood (2.4), Segura (3.7), Conger (2.1), Walden (3.3), Cowart (0), Richards (3.3), Martinez (0), Trumbo (6.6), Bedrosian (0) Total: 45.3, (21.4, non-Trout)Cubs (16th): Archer (2.9), Jackson (0.1), McNutt (0), Lee (0), Vitters (0), Carpenter (0), Szczur (0), Simpson (0), Dolis (0), Guyer (0.6) Total: 3.6Red Sox (17th): Kelly (0), Iglesias (1.9), Rizzo (3.9), Ranaudo (0), Britton (0.4), Fuentes (0), Reddick (8.8), Doubront (5.1), Pimentel (0.2), Cecchini (0) Total: 20.3Mariners (18th): Ackley (5.1), Pineda (3.8), Franklin (0.4), Walker (0.5), Pimentel (0), Robles (0.1), Chavez (0), Littlewood (0), Seager (8.6), Cortes (0) Total: 18.5Pirates (19th): Taillon (0.1), Sanchez (0), Allie (0), Marte (6.9), Heredia (0), Morris (0), Owens (0), Locke (1.1), Von Rosenberg (0), d'Arnaud (0) Total: 8.1Conclusion: the Red Sox system entering 2011 looks pretty good based on this analysis, at least so far. They don't have an elite talent like a Trout or a Taillon, but they have multiple above-average regulars, which is more than can be said for most of the other systems in their vicinity. (If anyone has more time, feel free to look at other farm systems from 2011 or at other years. I think the results will show a similar conclusion: prospects bust all the time, and the Red Sox system has not had a higher rate of busts than most other organizations.)
|
|
|
Post by ajs1994 on May 27, 2014 22:26:44 GMT -5
Thanks jmei. One great point is that the Red Sox system flat out wasn't strong at that point, even considered then. Trades in preceding seasons and poor drafting left them a mid tier system. And I have no qualms in saying that at that time, the system was merely average, as it was considered then. I do think they've progressed a good deal since that time, and comparatively this crop of talent is stronger than the 2011 one, or many other organizations. But it's going to take time, ideally at least the 3 years it's been since 2011, realistically quite a few more, to even come close to concluding if this class indeed did not merit the hype as a top tier farm system.
|
|
|
Post by godot on May 28, 2014 8:47:13 GMT -5
Good analysis by Hatfield, but he basically shows the system has not been productive recently. But he is hesitant to lay any blame on the system or do an analysis why, other than suggests perhaps luck. Jmei's analysis seems complicated and sophisticated ( "scientific") but it is essentially a more complicated version of, yes, we have no bananas, but if you think that we are bad then you should look at them, or two wrongs make a right. Apparently it has or is producing multiple above average regulars, although his list is misleading and questionable ( listing some players who haven't produced in the majors yet and others who are meh)
Really do not understand the criteria used by some such as comparative rankings, which say and show little about a system other than it is hard to develop major league ballplayers. Why do some teams do well and others are middling or just suck? Rather look at in terms of a teams philosophy and approach and whether the system is meeting the teams needs. Seems the Sox want to develop from within, fine, but ambitious as some note. Are they developing within to address deficiencies? Are there any outfield prospects, any good first baseman in the system, third basemen, yada yada. Really haven't seen much recently, but what do I know and some may rightfully disagree. The proof is in the eating as they say. No help this year or next for the outfield, except perhaps Betts: catchers, well Vasquez could be a back up and Swihart, although promising, is a few years away; third, have you followed Cecchini' "progress" this year?, and what pitcher from AAA could produce as a starter this year. ( I don't really take seriously players at the lower levels until they reach AA, and there is also the issue of age and college experience at these levels)
Rather than judge the system with any grade, it seems one can raise many questions and concerns. Still, we need to be open as development is not a straight line, they develop at different speeds, and players can surprise.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on May 28, 2014 8:58:16 GMT -5
Did you read the rest of his post? His issue is not being critical of the front office, it's doing so on the basis of completely unrealistic standards. But again I would say you're making different points and talking past each other. You are saying that relative to other teams we are good in producing players from the farm. He is saying that whatever players we produce (I would add, except for Bogaerts) our system doesn't seem to produce impact players in the majors worth planning around. It seems you are not disagreeing with that, just stating that it is unrealistic to expect that result. This seems to highlight the main point of the frustration in the question of "how strong is the system" and that is "why did we plan on the system filling three spots this year?" Thus, the question of "would you trade our system for another team's system" I think misses his bigger point. His real question is "would you trade our system for a proven major leaguer, given how small of a production you can expect from the minor league system?"
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on May 28, 2014 9:20:44 GMT -5
Seems like a lot of people are really impatient with some of these prospects. I hear guys call into the radio all the time demanding we trade for established talent. Do we really want to end up being Yankee Lite? We tried that already.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 28, 2014 9:35:52 GMT -5
I'm fascinated by how the thread has developed. My original point was that the hype in the Sox farm system MAY be all smoke and mirrors. I really don't know but I don't like what has come through Boston from the minors over the past five years. That's a pretty fair stretch to assess the system, and I have been anxiously awaiting the newbies and have been very disappointed with Middlebrooks, Webster and Bradley. Iglesias plain and simple cannot hit. I would just prefer to hit the breaks and demand that Cherington and his farm system prove it like Ellsbury, Pedroia, etc.. did in '06 - '09 before he gets a ribbon for his player development acumen.
The most interesting points pertain to the loss of Kalish and Westmoreland. I forgot those losses. Kalish looked like Trot Nixon II. Westy was awful young when he went down but seemingly on his way. Just sad. Not sure why so many are defensive. It's not your system. Chris and others on the Board mentioned Kalish and one or two others mentioned Westy. Interestingly, Pete Abraham (does he read this Board?) tweeted this a.m. that those who criticize the Sox outfielder player development failed to realize that Kalish, Reddick and Westy were coming up together. Good, solid point.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 28, 2014 9:38:56 GMT -5
Did you read the rest of his post? His issue is not being critical of the front office, it's doing so on the basis of completely unrealistic standards. But again I would say you're making different points and talking past each other. You are saying that relative to other teams we are good in producing players from the farm. He is saying that whatever players we produce (I would add, except for Bogaerts) our system doesn't seem to produce impact players in the majors worth planning around. It seems you are not disagreeing with that, just stating that it is unrealistic to expect that result. This seems to highlight the main point of the frustration in the question of "how strong is the system" and that is "why did we plan on the system filling three spots this year?" Thus, the question of "would you trade our system for another team's system" I think misses his bigger point. His real question is "would you trade our system for a proven major leaguer, given how small of a production you can expect from the minor league system?" I took it more along the lines of "the system hasn't produced anything so it sucks", while pretty much ignoring Bogaerts. Along with "a good system needs to produce two 3 WAR players who produce immediately per year minimum" to be considered ok. Or possibly "our system sucks because we don't have Bryce Harpers and Stephen Strasburgs coming out of it" while also ignoring Bogaerts.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 28, 2014 9:49:13 GMT -5
But again I would say you're making different points and talking past each other. You are saying that relative to other teams we are good in producing players from the farm. He is saying that whatever players we produce (I would add, except for Bogaerts) our system doesn't seem to produce impact players in the majors worth planning around. It seems you are not disagreeing with that, just stating that it is unrealistic to expect that result. This seems to highlight the main point of the frustration in the question of "how strong is the system" and that is "why did we plan on the system filling three spots this year?" Thus, the question of "would you trade our system for another team's system" I think misses his bigger point. His real question is "would you trade our system for a proven major leaguer, given how small of a production you can expect from the minor league system?" I took it more along the lines of "the system hasn't produced anything so it sucks", while pretty much ignoring Bogaerts. Along with "a good system needs to produce two 3 WAR players who produce immediately per year minimum" to be considered ok. Or possibly "our system sucks because we don't have Bryce Harpers and Stephen Strasburgs coming out of it" while also ignoring Bogaerts. You really, truly need to carefully read posts and think about what you're reading. Seriously. You tend to brutally exaggerate the opinions of others to make yours seem more reasoned. Please try to understand that reasoned debate is often enlightening.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on May 28, 2014 10:14:11 GMT -5
Good analysis by Hatfield, but he basically shows the system has not been productive recently. But he is hesitant to lay any blame on the system or do an analysis why, other than suggests perhaps luck. Jmei's analysis seems complicated and sophisticated ( "scientific") but it is essentially a more complicated version of, yes, we have no bananas, but if you think that we are bad then you should look at them, or two wrongs make a right. Apparently it has or is producing multiple above average regulars, although his list is misleading and questionable ( listing some players who haven't produced in the majors yet and others who are meh) Really do not understand the criteria used by some such as comparative rankings, which say and show little about a system other than it is hard to develop major league ballplayers. Why do some teams do well and others are middling or just suck? Rather look at in terms of a teams philosophy and approach and whether the system is meeting the teams needs. Seems the Sox want to develop from within, fine, but ambitious as some note. Are they developing within to address deficiencies? Are there any outfield prospects, any good first baseman in the system, third basemen, yada yada. Really haven't seen much recently, but what do I know and some may rightfully disagree. The proof is in the eating as they say. No help this year or next for the outfield, except perhaps Betts: catchers, well Vasquez could be a back up and Swihart, although promising, is a few years away; third, have you followed Cecchini' "progress" this year?, and what pitcher from AAA could produce as a starter this year. ( I don't really take seriously players at the lower levels until they reach AA, and there is also the issue of age and college experience at these levels) Rather than judge the system with any grade, it seems one can raise many questions and concerns. Still, we need to be open as development is not a straight line, they develop at different speeds, and players can surprise. I'm really not sure what your expectations are at all. Are you saying that because our system did not develop impact players at the exact positions in need to be ready for the exact year we needed them that it is a failure? And FWIW, I learned a lot by Chris and jmei's posts. This is one of the best discussions I've seen in 7 years on this board and those two posts do not deserve to be dismissed so quickly.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 28, 2014 10:21:19 GMT -5
Did you read the rest of his post? His issue is not being critical of the front office, it's doing so on the basis of completely unrealistic standards. But again I would say you're making different points and talking past each other. You are saying that relative to other teams we are good in producing players from the farm. He is saying that whatever players we produce (I would add, except for Bogaerts) our system doesn't seem to produce impact players in the majors worth planning around. ... His real question is "would you trade our system for a proven major leaguer, given how small of a production you can expect from the minor league system?" We don't have a clue before the season who we can expect what from. That goes for minor leaguers like Bogaerts and JBJ, and "proven" guys like Buchholz. You guys are being completely irrational. That pool of sure-fire talent doesn't exist. ADD: and if it did, and could be identified, the Yanks would out-bid us and baseball would be no fun.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 28, 2014 10:25:33 GMT -5
I took it more along the lines of "the system hasn't produced anything so it sucks", while pretty much ignoring Bogaerts. Along with "a good system needs to produce two 3 WAR players who produce immediately per year minimum" to be considered ok. Or possibly "our system sucks because we don't have Bryce Harpers and Stephen Strasburgs coming out of it" while also ignoring Bogaerts. You really, truly need to carefully read posts and think about what you're reading. Seriously. You tend to brutally exaggerate the opinions of others to make yours seem more reasoned. Please try to understand that reasoned debate is often enlightening. You're the one exaggerating about how bad the system is. Yes, I know damn well I took liberties with your words, but there's really no starting point for a logical debate. You're the one accusing people who doesn't see your side of it as being just a simple fanboy, incapable of critical thinking. Either you're an outright troll, or you are poisoned beyond repair with the negativity of reading too much Dan Shaughnessy and just had to throw fuel onto the bonfire of losing 10 in a row, just like Dan and WEEI commenters.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on May 28, 2014 10:32:13 GMT -5
This actually seems like Dan Shaughnessy pimping his own article. (probably not because even he can't believe what he writes) It's not healthy to actually be this negative about everything. You need a little Kevin Millar in your life. No, I'm not shank, but I do like him. Actually, I'm a degenerate Red Sox fan. I've been reading Gammons and Baseball America since the 80s. I also have critical reasoning skills and have noticed on my own over the years that ordinarily prospects who turn into good major league players show their ability within a month of promotion. I've never come across a player like JBJ. EVERYTHING about the guy through AAA cried out, "solid ten year centerfielder". Yet, he was terrible last year in his short stint and this year after being given the position with no real backup he's just awful at the plate. Do you happen to remember pedroia's 1st stint in the majors and his 2007 April? admittedly bradley's struggling for longer than he did, but no one's ever expected bradley to be the same kind of hitter as pedroia. Everyone struggles with the adjustment initially- give the kids more time. Everyone should probably have realized that this year was going to be the bridge year. Next year we'll see the system's pitching depth show up in the majors with peavy gone, and hopefully we can move doubront cause i'm personally sick of him. Regardless, if you want to be negative about the sox system, that's your prerogative, but the reason people are "mad" about it is that the consensus is pretty heavily against you, and you haven't provided a whole lot of good evidence for your point
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 28, 2014 10:38:02 GMT -5
Jmei, your post is great, but it answers a different question/makes a different point than the one I was making. Likely on me to be clearer. But anyway, I don't think your point and mine are mutually exclusive. Some clarifying points:
1) I wasn't comparing the 2011 system to contemporary systems I was looking more at how failures in the system may have contributed to the current state of the club. My conclusion is that there wasn't much high end talent, and that some value was wasted in bad trades.
2) And along those lines, I also wasn't comparing what the system produced against what the expectations were at the time. We knew at the time that the potential high-end talent was a long way away. I think the only surprising part of the outcomes, if you went back in time and looked at it in 2011 would be how little value Boston got in the RP trades, and thus out of the likes of Reddick. We knew then that it wasn't a great system. Weiland then would be on the back end of the current top 20.
So yeah, I agree with jmei's post completely. I just also think my points stand alongside his, rather than in contrast.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 28, 2014 10:55:42 GMT -5
ctfisher:
The pedroia comp. is interesting and worth consideration. The concern I have is Pedroia's struggles occurred when he was 22. At 23 he was rookie of the year. At 24 he won the MVP. Bradley's 24 years old. Pedroia and Bradley have similar pedigree, although Pedroia's height was always used against him. Both went to big time college programs, although Bradley signed after his senior year while Pedroia signed as a Junior.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on May 28, 2014 10:56:36 GMT -5
3. This is a classic example of my point. You simply skip over Middlebrooks. Middlebrooks is a bust. Who cares about BA or the prospects lists on this site. Both clearly were 100% wrong. The intelligent question is why? My belief is that Middlebrooks showed terrible plate discipline in the lower minors, always had a high strikeout rate and it has ended up burying him in the big leagues, where teams have the money to get top shelf advance scouting reports. Maybe there's something useful we can learn from this. We really need to consider high strike out rates mores seriously - we certainly didn't with Middlebrooks. I think this is why people are finding fault with your argument. MWB has had 1 full season's worth of plate appearances spread out over 3 injury riddled seasons. He very well might be a bust, but there's plenty of reason to speculate that he'll be ok. Brandon Moss, whom the Red Sox gave up on had to go to his 4th organization after 5 seasons to find any success. Now, we would love to have him. Jose Bautista over 5 partial seasons didn't have a wRC+ greater than 102 which he obviously followed up with a 165 wRC+! Keeping it in Toronto: Edwin Encarnacion over his first 6 seasons didn't have a wRC+ over 109, but has hit 151,145,153 wRC+'s since then. Chris Davis: 5 years and his second team before finding his stride. I could find another 100+ active players that took a lot longer than you're giving the current crop of Sox youngsters. I think the rest of us are reasonable in our expectations. You seem to think a successful prospect will come in and perform like a star right out of the gates. It takes time, which they need to be given.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 28, 2014 10:57:22 GMT -5
Did you read the rest of his post? His issue is not being critical of the front office, it's doing so on the basis of completely unrealistic standards. But again I would say you're making different points and talking past each other. You are saying that relative to other teams we are good in producing players from the farm. He is saying that whatever players we produce (I would add, except for Bogaerts) our system doesn't seem to produce impact players in the majors worth planning around. It seems you are not disagreeing with that, just stating that it is unrealistic to expect that result. This seems to highlight the main point of the frustration in the question of "how strong is the system" and that is "why did we plan on the system filling three spots this year?" Thus, the question of "would you trade our system for another team's system" I think misses his bigger point. His real question is "would you trade our system for a proven major leaguer, given how small of a production you can expect from the minor league system?" These are much more fair questions to ask, but let's not pretend that they were the original ones raised. A few brief responses: -I think you're conflating two distinct questions here. The issue oilcansman is more concerned about is how well the farm system produced between 2008-13. The issue you're more concerned about is about whether it was a good idea to trust Bradley, Bogaerts, and Middlebrooks with starting spots this past offseason, and whether it's a good idea to trust the current crop of prospects going forward. I will discuss each in turn. Re: 2008-2013-Since Ellsbury and Buchholz graduated, the Red Sox farm system was recognized by both this site and external outlets as more middle-of-the-pack than elite (BA ranked them 13th in 2009, 5th in 2010 (large due to Westmoreland, Kelly, and Iglesias), 17th in 2011, and 9th in 2012). Farm systems ebb and flow, and they had some bad drafts/IFA signings from 2007-09. Noone should have been under the illusion that the system was going to produce above-average starters every year during this period. -The idea that every farm system should stack up to the 2004-07 class of Youkilis, Hanley, Pedroia, Lester, Papelbon, Sanchez, Ellsbury, Buchholz, Lowrie, Masterson, etc. is the exact sort of unrealistic expectations others and I discussed earlier. Those were some historic years, and should not represent the baseline by which we evaluate a farm system. -As I noted above multiple times, we can't ignore the fact that in the past five years, a half-dozen starting-caliber prospects were moved in trades, at least a few of which returned "impact players in the majors worth planning around" (definitely Victor Martinez and Adrian Gonzalez; arguably Jake Peavy, Andrew Bailey, and Mark Melancon; not Erik Bedard, but he was another trade acquisition). That is a tangible benefit reaped from having a solid farm system. -Even putting aside trades, it's a little near-sighted to say that the Red Sox got basically nothing from their system over these years. It's a little what-have-you-done-for-me-lately to suggest that guys like Doubront or Middlebrooks are busts. As recently as two months ago, they were projected to be average-to-better starters on a team with playoff aspirations. They've both put up above-average seasons in the majors in the recent past. Sure, they're both scuffling now, but two months is far too small of a sample to declare them no longer assets. Tazawa has also been one of the better set-up men in the league over the past few years, while Nava was a crucial cog on a World-Series-winning team. That's four starting-caliber players over a four/five-year period. Re: the current state of the farm system-If you have concerns about individual prospects, each guy has a dedicated thread. It's much easier to discuss in detail a player's strengths and weaknesses individually rather than lumping them together. Xander has been about as good as expected, so the only real questions are about Bradley, Middlebrooks, and the lack of outfield depth. There are threads dedicated to those subjects. But my quick reply: it's too early to tell, give it more than two months. -More broadly, I think you raise a fair question when you ask "are these prospects good enough to rely on," but one with a flawed premise. That question assumes that the front office will continue to rely predominantly on prospects going forward, which is not a given. Presumably, this concern is driven largely by the front office and ownerships' repeated public statements that they do not wish to commit to long-term free-agent signings going forward, but that doesn't mean that the Red Sox are suddenly going to turn into the Rays. They've shown a continued willingness to sign/trade for veteran players to relatively expensive market-rate deals to fill holes (Napoli (x2), Victorino, Dempster, Pierzynski, Peavy, Drew) . Just because they did not sign a high(er)-priced catcher/outfielder/third baseman this offseason doesn't mean they are unwilling to do so in the future and will instead entrust the positions to prospects. For instance, I'm willing to bet that they re-sign Lester (or sign one of Scherzer/Shields/Masterson) and look into free agent outfielders/third basemen/catchers this offseason. -A related point: one source of angst seems to be that the farm system needs to develop so-called "impact players" (let's define it as players who will be in contention for All-Star Games; alternatively, guys who project to be worth 3+ WAR) to be successful. The idea is that as the current crop of Red Sox "impact players" age (Pedroia, Ortiz, Lester, Napoli, Victorino, etc.), the farm system needs to replace them for the major league club to continue to contend (since the front office won't sign them on the open market). This logic is flawed-- you don't need impact players to succeed. The Oakland As really have only two clear All-Star-caliber players (Donaldson and Gray; arguably Moss or Lowries or Cespedes or Kazmir), yet are probably the best team in the AL. Similarly, if the Red Sox surround Bogaerts and Pedroia and Lester with above-average starters, they're going to be a really good team. Plus, at least a few of the prospects in the system have 3+ win upside, including Betts and Swihart, but also possibly Bradley or Middlebrooks or Owens or De La Rosa or Webster or Barnes or even Cecchini/Vazquez. Maybe only one or two of those guys hits their ceiling, but all it takes is that plus a few others becoming averageish regulars and a good free agent signing or two, and you have a really good club.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 28, 2014 11:02:52 GMT -5
You really, truly need to carefully read posts and think about what you're reading. Seriously. You tend to brutally exaggerate the opinions of others to make yours seem more reasoned. Please try to understand that reasoned debate is often enlightening. You're the one exaggerating about how bad the system is. Yes, I know damn well I took liberties with your words, but there's really no starting point for a logical debate. You're the one accusing people who doesn't see your side of it as being just a simple fanboy, incapable of critical thinking. Either you're an outright troll, or you are poisoned beyond repair with the negativity of reading too much Dan Shaughnessy and just had to throw fuel onto the bonfire of losing 10 in a row, just like Dan and WEEI commenters. The posters on this thread seem to be enjoying it. I am hardly a troll. If anything I am a bit of a fanboy. I just tend to be dispassionate when I attempt to assess things. I am a lawyer who likes to simply question the basis for people's beliefs. I am a primary beneficiary of most of the answers on this thread, although none of yours. I think the people on this blog who are most knowledgeable are at their best when debating their opinions, as is evidenced by chris' and jmei's contributions. I am surprised you don't agree.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on May 28, 2014 11:35:33 GMT -5
....also one name that people are forgetting (unless I missed a post) from the 2008-2013 period....Daniel Bard. I think the horrific end to his Boston career might make people forget that he gave us 200 strong relief innings from 2009-2011 before 60 awful innings in 2012.
Anyways, back to the broader discussion....
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on May 28, 2014 11:44:46 GMT -5
You say that we shouldn't have come into this year relying on production from unproven players, and that's a good point. It's possible that management overestimated its ability to field a high-level team with so many unknowns. But it's equally possible that this season was never really about winning now - that management understood the risks involved in such uncertainty and ultimately decided that it was worthwhile to see whether these prospects have what it takes to hold the fort for the next several years (unless you thought signing AJP was a swinging-for-the-fences win-now move). And for what it's worth I think we're still pretty early in that judgmental process.
I have more to say, but I'm going to save it for when I get home from work. Just thought it was worthwhile to consider whether the organization's short-term goal is actually what you think it is.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 28, 2014 11:50:55 GMT -5
ctfisher: The pedroia comp. is interesting and worth consideration. The concern I have is Pedroia's struggles occurred when he was 22. At 23 he was rookie of the year. At 24 he won the MVP. Bradley's 24 years old. Pedroia and Bradley have similar pedigree, although Pedroia's height was always used against him. Both went to big time college programs, although Bradley signed after his senior year while Pedroia signed as a Junior. Pedroia STRUGGLED for the first month in his age 23 season. Yes, he went on to .400 in May, but that's exactly the point we're making with Bradley (though I don't think anyone expects him to be as good as Pedroia). Bradley was actually fine in April, before falling off a cliff this past month. He's still been an excellent defender at the hardest position a lefty can play, and he had that streak of being basically the only Sox player to hit with RSIP. Alex Gordon struggled for 2 years before becoming a decent player. Ortiz didn't hit for nearly 13 (calendar) months in the middle of his career, and then returned to his former self. Nava hit, then didn't then did again, and now isn't. Lugo had like a six thousand game hitless streak at some point. What makes a rookie so special that he should hit from day one?
|
|
|