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 bighead on May 28, 2014 11:59:23 GMT -5
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. That sounds like a euphemistic definition of trolling to me. I am an investment performance analyst and I can't tell you whether or not a 5% ROI is good or bad without comparing it to the opportunity set the portfolio manager was given and how his/her peers performed managing assets in the same investment strategy. It feels like you are telling people that 5% is a overhyped ROI or underperformance without comparing it to the benchmark or performing a peer group analysis because you've selected an arbitrary 10% as the measure of success. There is no legitimate basis for the two major leaguers produced per season threshold you have set for a "healthy system". Under those conditions most touted systems fall short so why are you singling out the Sox?
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 28, 2014 12:36:42 GMT -5
Bighead:
I already wrote a post where I said the basis of the two prospects per season was Haywood Sullivan's belief. Sullivan began in baseball operations with the Sox in the 60s under Dick O'Connell and eventually became a much despised owner. Nonetheless, he was a baseball guy who didn't believe in free agency, perhaps conveniently, and thought a good farm system should produce two starters per year. Notice I NEVER said stars - starters. Some posters seem to think I was talking about stars.
My claim that the system is underperforming is based on the fact no young players from the system for the past 4-5 years have contributed as starters to the team. There have been some interesting rebuttals (Reddick, Lowrie, Masterson, Kalish injury)I have commented on those players. No need to rehash.
One of the primary problems we all have is we tend to believe what we want evidence be damned. Believe me, I am sometimes an offender.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 28, 2014 12:50:27 GMT -5
Notice I NEVER said stars - starters. Some posters seem to think I was talking about stars. My claim that the system is underperforming is based on the fact no young players from the system for the past 4-5 years have contributed as starters to the team. There have been some interesting rebuttals (Reddick, Lowrie, Masterson, Kalish injury)I have commented on those players. No need to rehash. Well, that's just the thing. If you don't think Doubront or Middlebrooks or Nava are starters (or Masterson, Reddick, Lowrie, Moss, Rizzo, Iglesias), then when you say starter, you must really mean star (or at least above-average starter, which is pretty much the same thing).
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 28, 2014 12:54:05 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? So, in other words, if John Henry asks Ben Cherrington what's up with Bradley. Cherrington should tell him if Bradley is hitting like this for another year or two then it maybe it'll be time to worry? I doubt Henry or anybody in baseball operations would accept such an answer. How's this any different from saying, Tom Brady was drafted in the sixth round of the NFL draft, thus, we should draft all our quarterbacks in the sixth round. It took Gordon two years, thus wait for two years. As for Ortiz, do we really want Bradley taking what the Mitchell Report says he took? In general, it's not a good idea to look at the outliers.
|
|
|
Post by ajs1994 on May 28, 2014 12:54:08 GMT -5
Oilcan the only problem I think people have is that you've brought up an interesting discussion, but framed it with unreasonable expectations (that prospects prove themselves early on, a healthy farm system produce two starters a year, etc). I can't stress enough how rare it is for prospects to step in as productive major leaguers...if that were the case, rookie of the year award races would be a lot more interesting.
But the point about our system from 2008-2012 likely not generating any significant impact yet is a valid point, though Doubront was an ok 5 starter and Middlebrooks has flashes. Tazawa has been a quality reliever, but rievers are not big impact guys. . But it wasn't expected to make a huge impact, and as others mentioned we this made trades to acquire MLB talent to make up for the deficiency close to the majors talent. I really do think we are better now with a core of young than we have been in a long time. Of this generation (players considered prospects when we were a highly regarded system entering this year), Bogaerts has played well, and Bradley has struggled at the MLB level in a small sample size. Give the rest of the class and players time to develop and make it to the MLB level (or not make it) before judging if this class is overhyped. Indeed so far this year there is pessimism with Cecchini never getting extra base hits so far, and none of the AAA starters making huge sustainable strides in command. But Mookie has continued to make a leap, Simon Mercedes has become quite intriguing, Travis Shaw has made some interesting improvements to become relevant again. So it's not like everything is looking bad, it's just the typical ebbs and flows of prospects. So just give some other players the chance to develop, we may not be generating several starters per year, but I think we are in good shape right now. But only time can really conclude anything.
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on May 28, 2014 13:43:57 GMT -5
Notice I NEVER said stars - starters. Some posters seem to think I was talking about stars. My claim that the system is underperforming is based on the fact no young players from the system for the past 4-5 years have contributed as starters to the team. There have been some interesting rebuttals (Reddick, Lowrie, Masterson, Kalish injury)I have commented on those players. No need to rehash. Well, that's just the thing. If you don't think Doubront or Middlebrooks or Nava are starters (or Masterson, Reddick, Lowrie, Moss, Rizzo, Iglesias), then when you say starter, you must really mean star (or at least above-average starter, which is pretty much the same thing). A starting lineup of our "underperforming" former prospects is a pretty decent lineup: C: Lavarnway 1B: Rizzo 2B: Lowrie SS: Iglesias 3B: Middlebrooks LF: Nava CF: Bradley RF: Reddick DH: Moss It's not an All-Star team, but it's a contender with some solid defense and a solid OPS. You take that team and add 2 solid Free Agents at Catcher and the OF, and you have a perennuial Playoff team
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on May 28, 2014 14:32:36 GMT -5
Oilcan the only problem I think people have is that you've brought up an interesting discussion, but framed it with unreasonable expectations (that prospects prove themselves early on, a healthy farm system produce two starters a year, etc). I can't stress enough how rare it is for prospects to step in as productive major leaguers...if that were the case, rookie of the year award races would be a lot more interesting. But the point about our system from 2008-2012 likely not generating any significant impact yet is a valid point, though Doubront was an ok 5 starter and Middlebrooks has flashes. Tazawa has been a quality reliever, but rievers are not big impact guys. . But it wasn't expected to make a huge impact, and as others mentioned we this made trades to acquire MLB talent to make up for the deficiency close to the majors talent. I really do think we are better now with a core of young than we have been in a long time. Of this generation (players considered prospects when we were a highly regarded system entering this year), Bogaerts has played well, and Bradley has struggled at the MLB level in a small sample size. Give the rest of the class and players time to develop and make it to the MLB level (or not make it) before judging if this class is overhyped. Indeed so far this year there is pessimism with Cecchini never getting extra base hits so far, and none of the AAA starters making huge sustainable strides in command. But Mookie has continued to make a leap, Simon Mercedes has become quite intriguing, Travis Shaw has made some interesting improvements to become relevant again. So it's not like everything is looking bad, it's just the typical ebbs and flows of prospects. So just give some other players the chance to develop, we may not be generating several starters per year, but I think we are in good shape right now. But only time can really conclude anything. Tazawa actually was a key player last season. Sox probably wouldn't have gotten by Detroit without him.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on May 28, 2014 15:01:32 GMT -5
Don't worry about being called a troll oilcan. This is a good discussion for the most part. I was called a troll myself. Some here are ready, fire ,aim.
I'm too much of a fan to evaluate the system as a whole. I can be tough on prospects(WMB), but I admit to over rating most in my own mind as a fan.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 28, 2014 16:11:35 GMT -5
I think the sad part is when people think their opinions should be policy and then begin character assassinations. The context of this thread was to ask a simple question....that has many thoughts. It then begins the process of who is the smartest non-professional baseball mind in the room.
I get that this is a message board and people can and should disagree, but the author of this thread was maligned in a way that was pretty ridiculous. I think that was unfortunate.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 28, 2014 16:24:04 GMT -5
I get that this is a message board and people can and should disagree, but the author of this thread was maligned in a way that was pretty ridiculous. I'll do what I can and should then, by disagreeing with you. I think the OP was clearly trolling, and was then called a troll, and nothing worse, and I consider that completely fair.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 28, 2014 16:36:21 GMT -5
Pedroia STRUGGLED for the first month in his age 23 season. 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? So, in other words, if John Henry asks Ben Cherrington what's up with Bradley. Cherrington should tell him if Bradley is hitting like this for another year or two then it maybe it'll be time to worry? I doubt Henry or anybody in baseball operations would accept such an answer. I'm not suggesting we wait two years with Bradley, but I'd wait quite a long damn while with Bogaerts based on my initial projections. I think we can afford to give Bradley a little while longer (especially since there's no better option.) Like it or not, this (every?) team is going to live and die by their minor league systems just because of the cost of free agents (in dollars and decline years). But, of course, as you've correctly alluded to, it will be about the output, not the potential. Hold tight, cause it's going to be a wild ride.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on May 28, 2014 16:37:58 GMT -5
I get that this is a message board and people can and should disagree, but the author of this thread was maligned in a way that was pretty ridiculous. I'll do what I can and should then, by disagreeing with you. I think the OP was clearly trolling, and was then called a troll, and nothing worse, and I consider that completely fair. I'm just guessing you didn't check this poster's posting history before that post.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 28, 2014 18:24:45 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. I'm with you here. Before the season started, I suggested this - that having gotten an unexpected bonus in the form of a WS championship, the Sox might well be willing to go in on a transition year. Also suggested that it might take a while to see the return-on-investment. That's to be expected. Bogaerts is performing exactly as I thought he would, Bradley not - at least with the bat yet. But both could easily be accommodated with better roster decisions. To my mind they reflect a good system, one that the team was able to tap for quite a few players last year, both for important roles - Workman, Britton and Bogaerts - and as replacement parts in a pinch - Webster, Lavarnway, De la Rosa. If this team had gotten off to a better start, I think we'd all be willing to cut everyone a little more slack. I think a bit of the bad feeling comes from expecting a lot more than has been delivered. I'm not of the opinion that it has very much to do with the system at all. There were quite a few hints of vastly overblown expectations as the year started out. Everyone should be clear-eyed now, with a good understanding of Sizemore's pluses and minuses, and of Victorino's problematic health. Add to that the unforeseen stuff such as Napoli's hand injury and the return to earth of Buchholz, and the team has a hole they have to dig themselves out of. There's no way they fill it strictly with call-ups. That would be too much to expect.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on May 28, 2014 18:49:28 GMT -5
Whoa now.. Sullivan was all for FA, when it was someone else's money. He and LeRoux just were in debt to their respective eyeballs, then fell out amongst themselves and Jean Yawkey and Sullivan were the 2 with the team, with them left paying LeRoux a hefty profit for his one time partnership.
Also on the draft? Sullivan wasn't very good there either and could have done much better had he not wasted the 1st pick he gotten in '79 (2nd round) on his under performing son, a flop who hardly ever managed to hit his weight in the minors, nor move at all behind the plate, yet somehow with Sullivan at the helm of the Sox managed to get some MLB time in over several years.
I always put Sullivan down as the worst GM have seen with the team in my 50 years as a fan, easily worse than lovable Lou.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on May 28, 2014 19:23:07 GMT -5
I'll do what I can and should then, by disagreeing with you. I think the OP was clearly trolling, and was then called a troll, and nothing worse, and I consider that completely fair. I'm just guessing you didn't check this poster's posting history before that post. Not sure what you mean, but huis posting history has been pessimistic in general. I don't think he's a troll, but do think he was emphasizing the negatives and omitting some stuff, by accident or intention. He hasn't been unfairly maligned. Just questioned for being negative and not having any real argument other than I feel the system isn't producing as I want it to.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on May 28, 2014 20:27:42 GMT -5
I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions either, but it was an excellent question to pose and is worth a thorough analysis. In fact, I'd contend it is a very important one to ask from time to time since we all likely come here with a strong bias towards wanting to see us grow from within the system. The absolute best answer to this really has been answered - our system was not elite for a 3-5 year period and whatever talent we did have was mostly given away from unbalanced trades. That in hindsight we can see a bit clearer. What is not fair is to indict the current prospects (JBJ, WMB, AAA pitchers) at this stage and suggest our 'building from within' strategy won't work because this crop isn't good enough. They can only be given an incomplete grade right now. Scouts and organizations are much higher on the long-term success of the guys we have in Boston/AAA/AA, and I trust that they know enough to keep me excited some of them will become 'stars' (notice I didn't say just 'starters'). If we want to get upset about poor early returns, then we should be looking at the 2012-2013 drafts
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 28, 2014 21:12:16 GMT -5
OK folks, let's can the meta-argument about whether oilcan is a troll/whether he should have been called a troll. Let's stick to the discussion at hand.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 28, 2014 22:35:29 GMT -5
Whoa now.. Sullivan was all for FA, when it was someone else's money. He and LeRoux just were in debt to their respective eyeballs, then fell out amongst themselves and Jean Yawkey and Sullivan were the 2 with the team, with them left paying LeRoux a hefty profit for his one time partnership. Also on the draft? Sullivan wasn't very good there either and could have done much better had he not wasted the 1st pick he gotten in '79 (2nd round) on his under performing son, a flop who hardly ever managed to hit his weight in the minors, nor move at all behind the plate, yet somehow with Sullivan at the helm of the Sox managed to get some MLB time in over several years. I always put Sullivan down as the worst GM have seen with the team in my 50 years as a fan, easily worse than lovable Lou. Can't disagree about Haywood Sullivan. He was an awful GM and Marc Sullivan was one of the biggest travesties in Sox history. But the Sox farm system did churn out some good players during his time as GM. They had Boggs and Clemens in the pipeline - 2 HOFers, although they really didn't realize what they had in Boggs. I believe Boggs was teammates with Hurst, Ojeda, and Barrett during that 33 inning PawSox game. Gedman was a solid contributor. Boyd was a useful pitcher. Of course Sullivan will most be remembered for botching Carlton Fisk's re-signing which resulted in him changing his Sox. Your recollection of him jibes with what I remember about him.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,966
|
Post by jimoh on May 29, 2014 5:04:46 GMT -5
www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-memorial-day-mlb-draft-notes/apologies if this has been posted earlier "I polled some authoritative baseball scouting and development people on what they considered the three best drafts by teams over the last decade. The results: The 2009 Angels. ... The 2009 Cardinals. ... The 2011 Red Sox. This is still a work in promise; Jackie Bradley, Jr. was the 40th pick, was thought to be a major league regular this season, and has struggled to make The Mendoza line. But after taking Matt Barnes at 19, they went above slot for three players through round five, knowing this was the end of the over-slot era—catcher Blake Swihart, LHP Henry Owens, SS Mookie Betts (as well as LHP Cody Kukuk in round 7). Swihart, Owens and Betts would all be college juniors now if they hadn’t been persuaded to change their minds, and when I asked one scouting executive where they’d fit next week, the response was “Betts would be the first player chosen and Owens and Swihart would be somewhere between two and six."
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 29, 2014 7:17:42 GMT -5
I guess you're committed to only judging players by ERA and OPS. If you don't think that Masterson, Rizzo, Reddick, Lowrie, and Iglesias are quality starters, it's no wonder that we can't agree on the current state of the farm system. I'm still making my way thru this thread but I can never holdback a chance to point this out. Josh Reddick is not good. Fine, he belongs in the majors but he's not a quality starter. Great D, but he's a terrible hitter outside of a 2 plus month stretch in early 2012. Maybe he brings intangibles to the plate and fits the As very well but I wouldn't want him starting in Boston. No way.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 29, 2014 7:21:08 GMT -5
Impossibly high standards. Some of this is getting out of hand. Should I be reading the original question "How strong is the system" in the context of other MLB farm systems? If so, then the system is strong, very strong. However, if the system is expected to produce 2 all-stars a year, be strong in the upper, mid and lower levels of the system, while making sure we're stocked full of high-end pitchers (potential #1s), guys who can hit for a high average, field up-the-middle positions, get on base while barely striking out, steal bases, and hit for power......then uh yeah, the system has some "holes." I've just read some ridiculous comments in multiple threads for the past week. Please take a moment and visit each and every team's top 20 prospects, and then come back and report to me that this system is weak. I never said anything about producing all stars. All I did was say 2 starters per year on average. I never said anything about high end pitchers, although it should be noted that only guy in the system that seems to be a legit top end rotation threat is Owens. My point is that I have been reading and listening to people tell me about the amazing sox farm system and the returns over the past five years have been disappointing. The only player above AA that looks exciting is Boggie (he looks potentially incredible). At AA, Owens, Betts and Swihart look like front line talent. Boggie and those three may be it for the next three years or so. After that, your looking at lots of HUGE question marks. So all you want is 2 starters per year out of the farm system? C'mon now...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 29, 2014 8:16:36 GMT -5
I guess you're committed to only judging players by ERA and OPS. If you don't think that Masterson, Rizzo, Reddick, Lowrie, and Iglesias are quality starters, it's no wonder that we can't agree on the current state of the farm system. I'm still making my way thru this thread but I can never holdback a chance to point this out. Josh Reddick is not good. Fine, he belongs in the majors but he's not a quality starter. Great D, but he's a terrible hitter outside of a 2 plus month stretch in early 2012. Maybe he brings intangibles to the plate and fits the As very well but I wouldn't want him starting in Boston. No way. Since he left the Red Sox, Reddick has put up a 98 wRC+ in 1286 PAs and put up 3.4 fWAR per 600 PAs. That compares reasonably well to Shane Victorino over the same stretch of time. His raw offensive numbers aren't great, but he plays in one of the most offensive-suppressing parks in the league, is an above-average baserunner, and is one of the best right-field defenders in the game. Even if you only look at his stats from July 2012 to present (and thus arbitrarily exclude that hot streak), he's got an 86 wRC+. That's not great, but combined with his defense and baserunning, makes him a roughly two to two-and-a-half win player. That's a quality starter in my book, even if the profile (below-average hitter who makes up for it by being an elite defender in a corner outfield spot) is unconventional.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on May 29, 2014 9:23:31 GMT -5
The Sox would be a better team right now if Reddick was in the OF. I don't think we have seen his best yet, either.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 29, 2014 11:47:59 GMT -5
I still think the trades of Reddick and Lowrie were complete busts and why I still don't have full trust in Ben. Well, that and signing Pierzynski.
|
|
|
Post by ajs1994 on May 29, 2014 13:30:24 GMT -5
In order to put into perspective how many teams in the MLB have even merely healthy farm systems, I've decided to put the two quality starters to the test. I'm using my own idea of a quality starter, which means in my world, a Masterson or Lowrie type would qualify. So, teams with 2 quality starting rookies last year. Keep in mind this is only one year, and a healthy farm system is supposed to do this each year.
Marlins: Jose Fernandez and Christian Yelich. Braves: Teheran and Evan Gattis Pirates: Gerrit Cole and Starling Marte Indians: Corey Kluber and Yan Gomes Cardinals: Trevor Rosenthal and Shelby Miller Rays: Wil Myers and Chris Archer
And that's all. I'm even reaching with some of these (Cole only got a few starts last year, Kluber is a very old prospect, and Gomes was a backup). I did not include LA (Ryu isn't really a product of their farm system, went to MLB right away, so that leaves only Puig) Now I may have missed a couple teams (doing this on my phone is difficult), but the idea of producing two quality starters per year who do that in their debut season is difficult. Miami did a fire sale, and started countless rookies but only got the two performances of note last year (though Ozuna and Eovaldi are now developing). Teheran was long touted as the next great ace, but struggled for a few years before breaking through last year, and Gattis is brutal on defense, and was also a backup mostly.
|
|
|