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 soxfan06 on Apr 18, 2015 7:19:17 GMT -5
I still laugh at the Phillies fans who were laughing at the idea of Margot headlining a deal for Hamels.
We are quickly moving into the Manny Margot isn't available territory as a prospect, if that hasn't already happened.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 18, 2015 7:55:43 GMT -5
I still laugh at the Phillies fans who were laughing at the idea of Margot headlining a deal for Hamels. We are quickly moving into the Manny Margot isn't available territory as a prospect, if that hasn't already happened. I hope you're right, but I have a feeling that he'll be sacrificed in a deal for a top starter, which is too bad. It's not hard for me to imagine a future post-Papi lineup with a 1-2 punch of Betts and Margot, with guys like Moncada, Bogaerts, Devers, and Swihart stuffing the middle of the order.
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Apr 18, 2015 9:01:03 GMT -5
I still laugh at the Phillies fans who were laughing at the idea of Margot headlining a deal for Hamels. We are quickly moving into the Manny Margot isn't available territory as a prospect, if that hasn't already happened. I hope you're right, but I have a feeling that he'll be sacrificed in a deal for a top starter, which is too bad. It's not hard for me to imagine a future post-Papi lineup with a 1-2 punch of Betts and Margot, with guys like Moncada, Bogaerts, Devers, and Swihart stuffing the middle of the order. If that ever happens and those kids become actual division 1 players, then we'll be talking dynasty, the likes of Patriots run of 2001 - ......
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Apr 18, 2015 9:32:28 GMT -5
I still laugh at the Phillies fans who were laughing at the idea of Margot headlining a deal for Hamels. We are quickly moving into the Manny Margot isn't available territory as a prospect, if that hasn't already happened. I hope you're right, but I have a feeling that he'll be sacrificed in a deal for a top starter, which is too bad. It's not hard for me to imagine a future post-Papi lineup with a 1-2 punch of Betts and Margot, with guys like Moncada, Bogaerts, Devers, and Swihart stuffing the middle of the order. He may be, but if he keeps this upward trajectory, I could see him going the way of Xander and Mookie. Too much potential to trade. That is where Rueben Amaro really missed the point this offseason. Rather than pushing for Mookie or Swihart over and over again. He should have been trying to convince Ben C to give up Owners or Rodriguez + Margot + something else. Instead he, as usual, was too dense to realize that this Red Sox system is friggin loaded and he could have got himself an amazing deal for Hamel. Now he is on his way to the firing squad, just hoping Cole Hamels doesn't get hurt.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Apr 18, 2015 11:24:24 GMT -5
Amaro's legacy is the reason the Hamels trade won't happen. He has to hose the Sox to save face. No reason for the Sox to panic. Would like to win a championship. But, aren't desperate. Just wait to see who their new GM is. Their new GM will look at the dumpster fire that is the phillies. Get rid of everyone making a nickel for as much young talent as he can get. Start off at Ground Zero.
That said, If the Sox are playing well but need a starter. I'd probably do Margot, Owens or Johnson(Not E. Rodriguez) and a lower level prospect if the Phils eat some money. Or, take Craig's contract off our hands.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 18, 2015 15:16:03 GMT -5
Wow, yeah, that would be really bad if we had to dump... uh... uhm... Blake Tekotte? You had much more funny jokes before... Given the fact all people around here were thinking about how the outfield could work out BEGINNING in October, I don't see how we will not be thinking about where to fit Margot. Of course IF he reaches AAA and makes an impression over there in the second half. IF he reaches AAA it will be very late this year. Worst case scenario, out of Betts, Castillo, Ramirez, Victorino, Nava and Craig, 5 will be in MLB and 1 will be on the DL or traded. Then you have JBJ and Brentz in Pawtucket, still leaves one starting outfield spot available. Even if they've moved, say, Cecchini to the outfield then, Brentz can sit a few, you have a DH, and Cecchini can still play some 3B/1B at times. If Quintin Berry has to sit on the bench, well BOOHOO. I think Quintin Berry is a great person, but he's a AAAA player. I really don't see a problem.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Apr 21, 2015 9:09:23 GMT -5
You had much more funny jokes before... Given the fact all people around here were thinking about how the outfield could work out BEGINNING in October, I don't see how we will not be thinking about where to fit Margot. Of course IF he reaches AAA and makes an impression over there in the second half. IF he reaches AAA it will be very late this year. Worst case scenario, out of Betts, Castillo, Ramirez, Victorino, Nava and Craig, 5 will be in MLB and 1 will be on the DL or traded. Then you have JBJ and Brentz in Pawtucket, still leaves one starting outfield spot available. Even if they've moved, say, Cecchini to the outfield then, Brentz can sit a few, you have a DH, and Cecchini can still play some 3B/1B at times. If Quintin Berry has to sit on the bench, well BOOHOO. I think Quintin Berry is a great person, but he's a AAAA player. I really don't see a problem. If I remeber right, I wrote that we'd 'might' have a good problem as early as this fall, if he's the real deal (which meant something like a Mookie-progression). If that's the case, or even better: let's say all of thos happens in mid 2016, he obviously would become a serious option to start, in short: you don't want to waste such a player on the bench or even in Fenways left field given the huge vibes about his defense (the same debate we had with Mookie in ST). Suddenly we'd be having three to four capable centerfielders. So I'd not see the space on the mlb roster as the potential 'problem' but the fact that we'd possibly have to many whose best fit would be CF. But no misunderstandings: First of all, he could bust, JBJ could be gone, Rusney better suited for left field in '16 and so on. Even the scenario described above would be a good situation since we'd have assets who could bring us real value. But, it might be just me (although many others seem to feel at least a little bit alike), choosing wich player to trade is certainly a hard decision.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 21, 2015 9:28:48 GMT -5
There really is very little chance that Margot creates a problem this fall. He'd have to have a meteoric rise like Mookie last year and even if he did, it wouldn't be a horrible proposition to keep him down to get reps at AAA. And that's just until September, when he could come up anyway when rosters expand.
I wouldn't even mind if he were raking to postpone his debut until 2017 just to keep him longer. It's better than just trading him with the "he's blocked" discount that every GM would ask for.
Let him work out his approach in AAA instead of the majors and learn to take some walks and not let it affect his k-rate too much. Even though Carl Crawford was pretty good early in his career, he could have been 10 times better if he would have taken some walks.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 21, 2015 10:35:09 GMT -5
Some players respond better to rapid promotions than others. Betts did well but JBJ did not. As a result there are greater risks with rapid promotions. I have no idea how Margot will respond, but there isn't a compelling reason to accelerate him. More time in the minors probably would not do any damage.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 21, 2015 10:39:13 GMT -5
First of all, just because someone is an excellent prospect doesn't mean it is at all fair to compare them to Mookie. Mookie had 211 PAs at A+, 253 PAs at AA and 211 PAs at AAA. For comparison, Xander Bogaerts had 435 PAs at A+, 356 at AA and 256 at AAA ... and some might say those AAA PAs weren't enough.
Secondly, even if Margot were to match Mookie's ridiculous pace, he only had 56 PAs at A+ last year, so he's 155 PAs behind. Mookie, you may remember, started 2014 in AA, not A+.
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Apr 22, 2015 19:19:30 GMT -5
Betts not exactly lighting it up at the moment
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Apr 23, 2015 1:47:51 GMT -5
Guys, just for clearance: I never compared Margot with Mookie, I gave Mookie as an example that things can turn out faster than expected.
So, one more time: forget this fall, let's talk mid to late 2016: we could have 3-4 more than capable cf then. Would you let them play all three of-spots or are we saying goodbye to some of them if all turns out as we wish?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 23, 2015 6:23:34 GMT -5
Betts not exactly lighting it up at the moment .213 BABIP. Not worried a bit.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 23, 2015 7:56:45 GMT -5
So, one more time: forget this fall, let's talk mid to late 2016: we could have 3-4 more than capable cf then. Would you let them play all three of-spots or are we saying goodbye to some of them if all turns out as we wish? If everything turns out to be perfect, Ramirez will be a great defender in left field and be a top 10 hitter in the league, while Bradley Jr., Castillo and Betts are all all star caliber CFers. In this super rosy dreamland scenario, we are trading one of them even without Margot. But there are so many variables that there's not much point in speculating about it like that.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 23, 2015 10:22:57 GMT -5
Things do have a habit of evening out. The Sox have enough talent in their system to fill out a couple of major league lineup cards in two or three years. However, injuries will occur. Pitchers will discover weaknesses that some hitters won't be able to correct. And some will fall short of their development arc. But with as many terrific prospects as the Sox have now, some are going to make it.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 23, 2015 20:04:41 GMT -5
Five steals, three triples, an OPS over 1.000, and NO STRIKEOUTS in 11 games/45 PAs. That's impressive, and if he keeps up anything close to it I could see a AA promotion at the end of May. He may yet get a Sept look, especially since, if they're in the playoff hunt, his speed and defense might make a valuable bench combo. Not likely, but it's fun to dream a little.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 23, 2015 20:10:20 GMT -5
Five steals, three triples, an OPS over 1.000, and NO STRIKEOUTS in 11 games/45 PAs. That's impressive, and if he keeps up anything close to it I could see a AA promotion at the end of May. He may yet get a Sept look, especially since, if they're in the playoff hunt, his speed and defense might make a valuable bench combo. Not likely, but it's fun to dream a little. There is no way in hell he's getting added to the 40 this year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 23, 2015 20:40:25 GMT -5
Five steals, three triples, an OPS over 1.000, and NO STRIKEOUTS in 11 games/45 PAs. That's impressive, and if he keeps up anything close to it I could see a AA promotion at the end of May. He may yet get a Sept look, especially since, if they're in the playoff hunt, his speed and defense might make a valuable bench combo. Not likely, but it's fun to dream a little. There is no way in hell he's getting added to the 40 this year. With service time considerations, probably not. Which is why I said "not likely," and "it's fun to dream a little." ?
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Apr 24, 2015 3:13:22 GMT -5
It sometimes seems to be forebidden to do around here... EVEN if you write that you're dreaming...
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Apr 24, 2015 7:31:23 GMT -5
How long do we have to wait before Fangraphs or somebody does the research and tells us what the longest no-strikeout streaks are at various levels?
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Apr 24, 2015 7:44:35 GMT -5
How long do we have to wait before Fangraphs or somebody does the research and tells us what the longest no-strikeout streaks are at various levels? Well Joe Sewell once went 115 major league games without striking out and only struck out 3 times in the entire 1932 season ... so I highly doubt Margot's anywhere close to a record at any level. The strikeout rates are so much higher now, you'd really have to put it in context of 21st century baseball, and a 20 year-old in A+ ball. In that context, though, it's really, really impressive.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Apr 24, 2015 7:46:37 GMT -5
Yeah I'm talking about like color TV era.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 26, 2015 19:19:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 26, 2015 20:32:28 GMT -5
After today's 3-6 double-header, with a walk and sac fly, he's got no Ks yet in 16 games and 70 PAs this year, hitting .362. I admit, I'd like to see more walks (at least a 10% rate), but I can't really argue the results. In about 120 PAs in Salem, he's got 5 strikeouts. That's ridiculous in today's game. I wonder a little if it's affecting his power, but Salem's not exactly a bandbox. He's definitely getting his extra bases. I still think Portland is in his near future, particularly if he's even close to this level of performance after 200 PAs.
No-K watch in full effect. BA is going to need to add one like they did for Mookie's on-base streak.
|
|
|
Post by supersquid on Apr 27, 2015 0:03:21 GMT -5
"He’s a true five-tool prospect with incredible range in center field despite speed that ranks as just a tick above average." First I've seen Margot's speed regarded as anything less than plus. Albeit in an excerpt that praises his intangibles it still feels like a bit of a backhanded complement.
|
|
|