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.
2014-15 offseason discussion
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 26, 2015 13:27:07 GMT -5
I think I remember him being at around 1.9 WAR through May, which was putting him on pace for a 6 WAR season.
Yeah, and Pedroia stunk when he first came up while Middlebrooks looked like the second coming. Two months is a ridiculously small sample size and certainly not enough time to anoint anyone as either a bum or a savior. In his first full season, Xander put up three good months and three terrible months. At this point, it's still a question what kind of offensive player he'll be. Defensively, can he even field his position well enough to justify not calling up Marrero? If we're going to use two months of play as the measure of a young player's worth though, then Mookie's the guy to hang your star on. He looks like he's going to hit for average with plenty of extra bases and a high OBP. If he keeps that up, then he'll take the title of "best player on the Red Sox."
I don't think it's as simple as you painted it. I'm optimistic on Betts and Bogaerts, not necessarily because of Betts's 2014 limited season sample and Bogaerts extremely limited 2013 sample size including his post-season performance. I don't think anybody overestimates or underestimates based on that. It's the track record in the minor, the ballparks they've played at, and their age that carries a lot of weight. You sited WMB as the second coming, but I don't think it's that shocking that he busted. I'm sure most here are very surprised. His BB/K ratio has always been awful in the minor leagues. Not shocking that it eventually bit him in the major leagues, along with a lot of injuries. Honestly, he looked like he might be the second coming of Butch Hobson, and his numbers indicate that he is, but unfortunately broken up over several seasons. In 2012, the only thing you could say for sure about WMB was that he was a much better option than a broken down Kevin Youkilis. Bogaerts is only 22, and Betts about the same age. You're talking two very young guys, young for their leagues they've played in all along, minors and majors, who raked, and had good BB/K ratios. These guys are better prospects than the WMBs of the world. When Theo would talk about Pedroia he mentioned him as a candidate to hit .150 early on, but said based on his track record in the minors and other factors like his age, makeup, etc, he would be worth the wait to blossom, and that was definitely the case. It comes down to not all prospects are created equal and you have to know how to evaluate your prospects.
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcgillstatue on Jan 26, 2015 14:07:34 GMT -5
Bill Monbouquette dies at 78.
Monbouquette, Dick Radatz, Frank Malzone, a young Yaz and an even younger Tony C were the only bright lights on the mid-1960s Red Sox. He won 20 games for Johnny Pesky in 1963, pitched a no-no against the White Sox in 1962, and Kd 17 batters in a game in 1961. Only one Red Sox team he played on, 1958's, in his rookie season, was over .500. He ran out of gas in 1964-65, then was traded away and finished up with the Tigers, Giants and Yankees. I met him at a Red Sox fantasy camp in the early 1990s (at Winter Haven, so before 1993). A very nice man who, despite his Medford birthplace and his French-Canadian roots, spoke with an Anglo-Canadian accent. He was working for the Blue Jays then -- after being a big league pitching coach for the Yankees and Mets -- and I asked him why the Red Sox never brought him back into the organization. He said he had been black-listed for being too outspoken.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,984
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 26, 2015 14:11:18 GMT -5
... You sited WMB as the second coming, but I don't think it's that shocking that he busted. I'm sure most here are very surprised. His BB/K ratio has always been awful in the minor leagues. Not shocking that it eventually bit him in the major leagues, along with a lot of injuries. Honestly, he looked like he might be the second coming of Butch Hobson, and his numbers indicate that he is, but unfortunately broken up over several seasons. In 2012, the only thing you could say for sure about WMB was that he was a much better option than a broken down Kevin Youkilis. ... Yeah, with Middlebrooks I think everyone was saying "wow, maybe this guy from whom we did not expect much will somehow prove to be a better hitter than we thought." Seductive, but nothing like dreaming on Betts and Bogaerts.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 26, 2015 14:39:57 GMT -5
Yeah, with Middlebrooks I think everyone was saying "wow, maybe this guy from whom we did not expect much will somehow prove to be a better hitter than we thought." Seductive, but nothing like dreaming on Betts and Bogaerts.
Who didn't expect much from Middlebrooks? On this very site, Middlebrooks was rated the Sox #1 prospect on September 9, 2011, again on April 5, 2012 and again on June 8, 2012. As far as the record shows, prior to the emergence of Bogaerts, folks here were quite high on Middlebrooks:
www.soxprospects.com/history.htm
There were a number of people that questioned whether WMB's approach would translate- including jmei for one.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 26, 2015 14:40:37 GMT -5
Middlebrooks was never one of the top 50 prospects in baseball. Bogaerts was BA's #2. Middlebrooks peaked as a prospect in the season following the Gonzalez trade - he'd have been behind Kelly and probably Rizzo if they'd stayed, and he'd never have had that "ex-#1 prospect" stuck to him. Just because they were both the top prospect in the organization at some time doesn't mean that they were thought of anything close to equally.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 26, 2015 14:47:36 GMT -5
Yeah, with Middlebrooks I think everyone was saying "wow, maybe this guy from whom we did not expect much will somehow prove to be a better hitter than we thought." Seductive, but nothing like dreaming on Betts and Bogaerts.
Who didn't expect much from Middlebrooks? On this very site, Middlebrooks was rated the Sox #1 prospect on September 9, 2011, again on April 5, 2012 and again on June 8, 2012. As far as the record shows, prior to the emergence of Bogaerts, folks here were quite high on Middlebrooks:
www.soxprospects.com/history.htm
Nah, you gotta put that into the proper context ... not all #1 prospects are created equal. WMB was #1 for a relatively brief time in a system that was quite a bit weaker than the current one. Middlebrooks had a big 2011 and start to 2012, but I think the general consensus was that he showed promise with his power and athleticism but had a high bust potential because of his K/BB numbers. I never quite believed in him, and I didn't feel alone in that at all. WMB was only ~50 in BA rankings, for instance, before his 2012 promotion to the bigs, while Bogaerts was #2 before last year, and Mookie would maybe be top 10 if he was eligible, certainly top 15. [edit to add something since James said basically the same thing I just did]: while very different players, I think WMB post-2011 was probably roughly equivalent to Garin Cecchini before last year. Each had some things that looked really good (WMB's power and progression in his BA; Cecchini's approach and OBP) while having holes that some people looked at to say he wouldn't make it (contact ability/pitch recognition and power, respectively). You could probably see some bias in who was favoring whom because there probably wasn't a lot of overlap. I never bought into WMB but was a Cecchini bandwagon resident, for instance, because I like OBP and pitch recognition and am very wary of guys who don't have it.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 26, 2015 15:00:12 GMT -5
Xander went from being Tulo last year to Peralta this year.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Jan 26, 2015 16:35:07 GMT -5
Middlebrooks was never one of the top 50 prospects in baseball. Bogaerts was BA's #2. Middlebrooks peaked as a prospect in the season following the Gonzalez trade - he'd have been behind Kelly and probably Rizzo if they'd stayed, and he'd never have had that "ex-#1 prospect" stuck to him. Just because they were both the top prospect in the organization at some time doesn't mean that they were thought of anything close to equally. Not true, but your point remains.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 26, 2015 17:00:15 GMT -5
... You sited WMB as the second coming, but I don't think it's that shocking that he busted. I'm sure most here are very surprised.... If you mean surprised that Middlebrooks wasn't the second coming, you need to disabuse yourself of that idea. There was a lot of scepticism, and even a few calls to sell high if I remember right. The issue has always been the same one, lack of pitch recognition, and it really came back to bite him along with the injuries. It really has me wondering if it's possible to rehabilitate a player if they lack the ability to tell what's coming at them. Personally, I got one more lesson in how it works in the major leagues. Pitchers probed him with stuff inside and out - with quite a few of those getting launched for HRs early on - until they distilled the formula they needed to cut him down early and often. It was painful to watch him swing at balls that broke way off the plate. It made me cringe. After that first season with the promise of easy power, the contact rate just killed him. I thought he might be able to push the average up to .260 - .270 and that, with that sort of contact, the power would play even if he could only get his OBP up to .320. I was dead wrong last year, and I no longer feel he has the potential to do that, with or without injuries. I think the league caught up to him, and that's exactly what a few of the more astute opinions on this board thought would happen.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 26, 2015 17:17:53 GMT -5
Xander went from being Tulo last year to Peralta this year. If ZIPS projections come to pass, Xander will walk 7.2% of the time and strikeout 21.4% of the time and his BB/KK ratio will be the worst of any position player expected to make the team out of spring training - unless you expect Allen Craig to be on the team, which is a whole other question unto itself. Not bad if that's the worst. It's pretty much league average. It would also be an improvement over last season.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 26, 2015 17:23:54 GMT -5
Xander went from being Tulo last year to Peralta this year. If ZIPS projections come to pass, Xander will walk 7.2% of the time and strikeout 21.4% of the time and his BB/KK ratio will be the worst of any position player expected to make the team out of spring training - unless you expect Allen Craig to be on the team, which is a whole other question unto itself. Considering that the league-average walk rate was 7.6% last year and the league-average strikeout rate was 20.4% last year, this is more a commentary on how good the rest of the roster is than a real criticism of Xander's game. ZiPS still projects him to be an above-average shortstop overall (2.3 WAR), which is pretty solid, if still lower than where expectations were last spring. ADD: scooped
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 26, 2015 18:01:11 GMT -5
While reading through the ZIPs projections on Fangraphs I started wondering who should start the first game of the season and be listed as the de facto 'Ace' or '#1' or whatever you want to call it. Fangraphs lists Porcello as the #1 starter due to his optimistic projections (3.5 fWAR) but I think that Buch would be a better choice.
Hear me out: - Buchholz (Am I the only one who STILL has to double check the spelling every time?) has at times pitched like a true ace, while other times pitching like the guy you nicknamed 'Meat' in your slow pitch softball league. So it could be that he can match the opponents top pitcher inning-for-inning or he could be lit-up and be out of the game in the 3rd. If this were the case then it may give the Red Sox the pitching edge in more games than any other pitcher on the staff while also keeping the presumably better Porcello to face-off against the opposing teams second best pitcher, where he may have a decisive advantage. To sum it up: if you're gonna lose, you might as well lose BIG (and let the fans get home to their families and HBO early). - Buchholz is the only pitcher on the staff signed past 2015 (technically there are team options, but same difference). That means that if any of the other projected starters (Justin Masterson, Joe Kelly, Wade Miley Cyrus and Rick Porcello) won't be able to use the 'you named me your #1 starter' in free agent or arbitration negotiations after the season to leverage a bigger paycheck (I assume agents do this - no idea really). So this could result in the Red Sox saving money as I can't imagine a negotiation ever following 'you made him your #1 starter 2 years ago therefore you should pay him more money NOW' without it being laughed off.
Curious who everyone else thinks should be the #1 starter. Obviously plenty of time to figure that out and choosing now is just as pointless as waiting until the end of spring training (as our say means squadoosh anyway).
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 26, 2015 18:31:09 GMT -5
I remember repeatly writing here that I couldn't tell if AA Middlebrooks was more Inge or Longoria but it was essential for the front office to know and act accordingly since much could be had for him at his minor league hype zenith. In retrospect they blew it too. This, Lars Anderson, Casey Fossum ("future1/2" starter and considered off limits by Theo for many trades) Michael Bowden, etc, and a cast of thousands across the minor leagues in all organizations is why I am frequently skeptical of the high end optimism assigned to prospects. As much as I love watching these guys grow - and seeing them live whenever I can - very, very few will end up being MLB average players or better.
And I say that being as enthusiastic supporter of Middlebrooks, Engel Beltre, Anderson and about a half dozen other guys who spund like members of a breathless Peter Gammons Spring Training roll call of "future stars and MLB regulars just a few years away in the Red Sox system."
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,830
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jan 26, 2015 19:14:56 GMT -5
Zimmermann is a #2 IMO
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 26, 2015 19:30:24 GMT -5
I remember repeatly writing here that I couldn't tell if AA Middlebrooks was more Inge or Longoria but it was essential for the front office to know and act accordingly since much could be had for him at his minor league hype zenith. In retrospect they blew it too. This, Lars Anderson, Casey Fossum ("future1/2" starter and considered off limits by Theo for many trades) Michael Bowden, etc, and a cast of thousands across the minor leagues in all organizations is why I am frequently skeptical of the high end optimism assigned to prospects. As much as I love watching these guys grow - and seeing them live whenever I can - very, very few will end up being MLB average players or better. And I say that being as enthusiastic supporter of Middlebrooks, Engel Beltre, Anderson and about a half dozen other guys who spund like members of a breathless Peter Gammons Spring Training roll call of "future stars and MLB regulars just a few years away in the Red Sox system." So you're saying to buy low and sell high, correct? And to trade the overhyped prospects while keeping the legit ones? I think that's the goal for every franchise. If they could do it all over again I'm sure they would've dealt WMB earlier, but it is what it is. For the record Fossum was dealt as a key piece in the Schilling deal, so it's not like they sold low there, and having a couple prospects who "busted" is the cost of doing business. They haven't dealt many prospects who've turned out to be above average starters, so that's the opposite side of the argument. Over a decade plus it's easy to be captain hindsight, but I don't think overvaluing prospects has been a big organizational problem.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 26, 2015 19:49:05 GMT -5
Choosing which one is #1 is pretty much always pointless, however, Buchholz has been here the longest, he'll get the opener.
The more interesting thing is that we open up at Phily which means no DH and lefties on the mound. Ortiz will get the start at first but that's not likely the wisest of decisions.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jan 26, 2015 19:57:37 GMT -5
I was a big Middlebrooks fan for a long time. I was impressed with how he improved from season to season in the minors. Others pointed out that he was not improving in the BB department, which was true. His walk rate declined over time, and his pitch recognition skills did not keep up with the better pitching.
I thought he had a chance to be a sort of Malzone-type 3B, a decent fielder with some power. I don't know if anyone expected him to be a superstar. I didn't. I thought he would just be a solid player, and he still has a chance of doing that.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 26, 2015 20:51:49 GMT -5
I remember repeatly writing here that I couldn't tell if AA Middlebrooks was more Inge or Longoria but it was essential for the front office to know and act accordingly since much could be had for him at his minor league hype zenith. In retrospect they blew it too. This, Lars Anderson, Casey Fossum ("future1/2" starter and considered off limits by Theo for many trades) Michael Bowden, etc, and a cast of thousands across the minor leagues in all organizations is why I am frequently skeptical of the high end optimism assigned to prospects. As much as I love watching these guys grow - and seeing them live whenever I can - very, very few will end up being MLB average players or better. And I say that being as enthusiastic supporter of Middlebrooks, Engel Beltre, Anderson and about a half dozen other guys who spund like members of a breathless Peter Gammons Spring Training roll call of "future stars and MLB regulars just a few years away in the Red Sox system." So you're saying to buy low and sell high, correct? And to trade the overhyped prospects while keeping the legit ones? I think that's the goal for every franchise. If they could do it all over again I'm sure they would've dealt WMB earlier, but it is what it is. For the record Fossum was dealt as a key piece in the Schilling deal, so it's not like they sold low there, and having a couple prospects who "busted" is the cost of doing business. They haven't dealt many prospects who've turned out to be above average starters, so that's the opposite side of the argument. Over a decade plus it's easy to be captain hindsight, but I don't think overvaluing prospects has been a big organizational problem. No, I'm saying that even the orgs, who know these guys better than we ever could have the same problem - overvaluing certain guys. It's not easy, I'm just surprised when they make the same mistakes with it as the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 26, 2015 21:08:56 GMT -5
... You sited WMB as the second coming, but I don't think it's that shocking that he busted. I'm sure most here are very surprised.... If you mean surprised that Middlebrooks wasn't the second coming, you need to disabuse yourself of that idea. There was a lot of scepticism, and even a few calls to sell high if I remember right. The issue has always been the same one, lack of pitch recognition, and it really came back to bite him along with the injuries. It really has me wondering if it's possible to rehabilitate a player if they lack the ability to tell what's coming at them. Personally, I got one more lesson in how it works in the major leagues. Pitchers probed him with stuff inside and out - with quite a few of those getting launched for HRs early on - until they distilled the formula they needed to cut him down early and often. It was painful to watch him swing at balls that broke way off the plate. It made me cringe. After that first season with the promise of easy power, the contact rate just killed him. I thought he might be able to push the average up to .260 - .270 and that, with that sort of contact, the power would play even if he could only get his OBP up to .320. I was dead wrong last year, and I no longer feel he has the potential to do that, with or without injuries. I think the league caught up to him, and that's exactly what a few of the more astute opinions on this board thought would happen. It's amazing what one omitted word can do to butcher a sentence. I intended to type that most here were NOT surprised that WMB wasn't the second coming. A lot of us saw that K/BB ratio and figured it would lead to trouble. Unfortunately, my typing was rushed and I totally blew what I was intending to say. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 21:15:16 GMT -5
Considering the investments now involved, it's a little disturbing how divergent assessments can be of the same player. Alex Cora recently had some quite candid remarks on this very issue: www.overthemonster.com/2015/1/9/7518645/rusney-castillo-boston-red-sox-alex-cora-winter-ball-2014-2015"He (Rusney Castillo) was more polished than what people thought or let me know about him. He's a complete player," Cora said via phone on Thursday. "He's got a pretty good idea about the game. His baseball IQ is solid. He understands it and we were very impressed with the way that he plays the game, he's been taught the game. He thinks the game. He's a good player." "A lot of people told me, not the organization, but other people told me that his instincts weren't that good. They thought because he hadn't played for a long period of time that he was a little bit off as far as that. For me, it didn't look that way. He paid attention to the game, took advantage of certain situations and, offensively, he has a pretty good idea of what he wants to do."
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 27, 2015 7:01:55 GMT -5
So you're saying to buy low and sell high, correct? And to trade the overhyped prospects while keeping the legit ones? I think that's the goal for every franchise. If they could do it all over again I'm sure they would've dealt WMB earlier, but it is what it is. For the record Fossum was dealt as a key piece in the Schilling deal, so it's not like they sold low there, and having a couple prospects who "busted" is the cost of doing business. They haven't dealt many prospects who've turned out to be above average starters, so that's the opposite side of the argument. Over a decade plus it's easy to be captain hindsight, but I don't think overvaluing prospects has been a big organizational problem. No, I'm saying that even the orgs, who know these guys better than we ever could have the same problem - overvaluing certain guys. It's not easy, I'm just surprised when they make the same mistakes with it as the rest of us. Either that or other teams valued them correctly. Also, teams don't usually go out just looking for trades they don't need to make, thinking 'this prospect is overhyped, let's trade him for whatever.' And besides that, you're using hindsight to judge. There is always a percentage chance that prospects do work out. At the time a team decides to hold onto someone, it's not a 0/100% chance of boom/bust. We held onto a lot of hyped guys that teams wanted like Lester and Ellsbury and gave up guys like Rizzo and Hanley too.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jan 27, 2015 11:57:50 GMT -5
I'm not sure where this story belongs but it belongs somewhere. Here a link to an article by Gordon Edes about Bill Monbouquette, a star starting pitcher for the Red Sox on horrible teams in the late 50s through the mid 60s or so. I remember picking up the Boston Herald which was delivered daily to our southern Maine home and reading of Monbo's 17 strikeout game....a fantastic feat particularly in those days. He was a heckuva pitcher and high-character guy. espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/12234188/boston-red-sox-great-bill-monbouquette-made-impression
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 27, 2015 12:46:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 27, 2015 13:01:26 GMT -5
I'm not sure where this story belongs but it belongs somewhere. Here a link to an article by Gordon Edes about Bill Monbouquette, a star starting pitcher for the Red Sox on horrible teams in the late 50s through the mid 60s or so. I remember picking up the Boston Herald which was delivered daily to our southern Maine home and reading of Monbo's 17 strikeout game....a fantastic feat particularly in those days. He was a heckuva pitcher and high-character guy. espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/12234188/boston-red-sox-great-bill-monbouquette-made-impressionHere's another one: www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2015/01/bill_monbouquette_writes_great_endingThose weren't great times to be a good pitcher on a bad team. Back then it was pretty universally thought that pitcher wins was the important stat for evaluating pitchers (and RBI for hitters) since the other team can't win without scoring. He was the staff leader though and pretty much took that role after Mel Parnell retired. He was also pretty much abandoned by the Sox. Back then being outspoken just wasn't acceptable. I was pretty surprised that Rodriguez didn't make the LHP top 10.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 27, 2015 13:30:23 GMT -5
I was pretty surprised that Rodriguez didn't make the LHP top 10. I think a lot of people are - probably correctly - holding off on Rodriguez to see if his post-trade performance was real or just a hot streak. I show no such caution in my enthusiasm for Rodriguez, but I can understand the sentiment.
|
|
|