|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 30, 2012 10:23:47 GMT -5
Buried a bit in this post by Gordo over at ESPNBoston is BA's Red Sox top 10 1. Bogaerts 2. Bradley Jr. OF 3. Barnes, RHP 4. Webster, RHP 5. Owens, LHP 6. Swihart, C 7. Garin Cecchini, 3B 8. Brentz, OF 9. Iglesias, SS 10. Deven Marrero, SS Reasonably close to the SoxProspects rankings. Makes sense that they'd have an upside guy like Owens higher than we do. |
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Oct 30, 2012 11:08:51 GMT -5
Owens is only a surprise to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Oct 30, 2012 11:38:14 GMT -5
Owens is only a surprise to me. With me overall upside is and should be the first factor considered then probability of reaching it second so I like the list. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 30, 2012 13:04:17 GMT -5
One thing to remember with the offseason lists is that they don't get a chance to update them all season like we do here on the site. Given Owens' potential upside, I'm not surprised at all. Heck, we've got him 8th using BA's ranking rules (in other words, removing RDLC), and I do think that second four of Owens, Brentz, Cecchini, Swihart is relatively fungible, in a good way.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 30, 2012 13:17:02 GMT -5
I thought BOS is not posted until tomorrow (according to BA site)?
|
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Oct 30, 2012 13:28:55 GMT -5
Good to see Marrero in the top 10.
2 years before he's in Boston, he'll move quickly....
|
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Oct 30, 2012 14:56:23 GMT -5
I am surprised that De La Rosa is not in the top ten
|
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Oct 30, 2012 15:00:51 GMT -5
I am surprised that De La Rosa is not in the top ten He doesn't qualify. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 30, 2012 17:03:14 GMT -5
I thought BOS is not posted until tomorrow (according to BA site)? Read the link. He was apparently looking at the print edition. |
|
|
|
Post by marrcus on Oct 31, 2012 0:35:54 GMT -5
ho doesn’t muscle up to tap into his plus-plus raw power.’’
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume this proclaims X is a clean ++ .
|
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Oct 31, 2012 1:56:51 GMT -5
C Blake Swihart
1B Jerry Sands
2B Dustin Pedroia
3B Will Middlebrooks
SS Xander Bogaerts
LF Jacoby Ellsbury
CF Jackie Bradley Jr.
RF Bryce Brentz
DH Garin Cecchini
SP Jon Lester
SP Clay Buchholz
SP Matt Barnes
SP Allen Webster
SP Henry Owens
Closer Rubby de la Rosa
Jerry Sands at 1B is the only thing I found interesting. Obviously they can't fill in a free agent acquisition, but I wonder if BA thinks his bat will play at the ML level.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Oct 31, 2012 6:06:20 GMT -5
I think the reason Sands is at 1B, is you look at the Red Sox depth chart for that position, and your choices at AA or higher are Mauro Gomez, Jerry Sands, Travis Shaw, and Drew Hedman. And it's doubtful BA would make the stretch of having someone like Lavarnway or Middlebrooks be converted to 1B.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 31, 2012 8:47:51 GMT -5
I assume this proclaims X is a clean ++ . I think he's saying that he generates power easily, without using pure arm strength to do it. I don't think it has anything to do with steroids, just swing mechanics. One could have said the same thing about Manny or A-Rod. |
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Oct 31, 2012 9:28:02 GMT -5
C Blake Swihart 1B Jerry Sands2B Dustin Pedroia 3B Will Middlebrooks SS Xander Bogaerts LF Jacoby Ellsbury CF Jackie Bradley Jr. RF Bryce Brentz DH Garin Cecchini SP Jon Lester SP Clay Buchholz SP Matt Barnes SP Allen Webster SP Henry Owens Closer Rubby de la Rosa Jerry Sands at 1B is the only thing I found interesting. Obviously they can't fill in a free agent acquisition, but I wonder if BA thinks his bat will play at the ML level. If there's one thing on BA not to pay any attention to its the projected future lineups. |
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Oct 31, 2012 9:32:27 GMT -5
I assume this proclaims X is a clean ++ . I think he's saying that he generates power easily, without using pure arm strength to do it. I don't think it has anything to do with steroids, just swing mechanics. One could have said the same thing about Manny or A-Rod. I'm not sure steroids were implied either way. Maybe he meant a true ++ but I could be wrong. There's also a difference between having ++ power in batting practice and ++ power in game. Steroids just didn't enter my mind the first time I read that. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 31, 2012 9:55:22 GMT -5
I think you might be right. I read "muscle up" followed by "clean" and I think my brain made a leap to a conclusion that wasn't there. My bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Oct 31, 2012 10:09:36 GMT -5
Found this more interesting, but probably shouldn't read too much into it - 6 starters for 5 slots and Rubby is the only one that seems like a closer 'type'. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 31, 2012 10:40:17 GMT -5
Durability, command, and consistency with a third pitch are De La Rosa's weaknesses right now. Even if those never come along, he's a high leverage reliever, I'd say.
Their stuff and builds are different, but in a sense it's sort of a similar situation the Red Sox faced with Papelbon six years ago. De La Rosa would probably play right now as an excellent reliever, provided he is healthy. So what to do? Which role will he be healthier in? Is he close enough on his development of his weaknesses to reasonably project as a 2/3 starter?
De La Rosa has an advantage that Papelbon didn't, though. The '06-'07 Red Sox were contenders, and really needed a bullpen ace (at least in theory, not trying to get into a whole bullpen strategy discussion here). The Red Sox, on the other hand, are much more on the fringe, giving them a chance to take it on the chin with the bullpen while letting De La Rosa develop in Triple-A to see where he can be as a starter.
Long story short, BA is probably comfortable projecting that he'll be an MLB reliever at the least, but not ready to say yet that he can start.
|
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 31, 2012 10:52:12 GMT -5
Just curious as to how BA goes about evaluating talent and what methods it uses to arrive at rankings.
Does it have a staff of scouts and evaluators? If so, how often do the scouts actually see players' performances? Or does it rely on ML scouts to give it data on players?
Do they rank players based upon performances of players at the same position, taking age, where drafted and other metrics into consideration?
|
|
|
|
Post by lasershow07 on Oct 31, 2012 14:17:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremynofakerbaker on Nov 1, 2012 3:08:16 GMT -5
I saw workman pitch for wareham during the 09 season on the cape on several occasions. His curve ball improved from the beginning of the season to the end greatly, I remember seeing him during his side sessions work on his mechanics alot. The pitching coach that year for wareham was telling people hes the hardest working pitcher he has seen in quite sometime
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremynofakerbaker on Nov 1, 2012 3:10:43 GMT -5
If the list was based solely on pure upside Owens would be number #2 behind Bogaerts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Mellen on Nov 1, 2012 5:59:23 GMT -5
Matt Barnes' curveball is better than Brandon Workman's. Both curves are on the inconsistent side, but I give the edge to Barnes as he can spin it deeper and create more depth. Workman's will flash plus at times, though it tends to roll and comes/goes during outings.
|
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Nov 1, 2012 7:00:45 GMT -5
What's your opinion about changeups? I was surprised when I saw Owen's as the top rated in the system. I would have guessed Pimentel's or Webster's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Mellen on Nov 1, 2012 7:27:33 GMT -5
What's your opinion about changeups? I was surprised when I saw Owen's as the top rated in the system. I would have guessed Pimentel's or Webster's. Allen Webster's was the best I saw all season in the system. He threw it with excellent arm speed, showed strong feel/depth, and the ability to miss bats with it. Henry Owens' showed potential with it, but he slowed his body down frequently and it lacked consistent late finish. I see growth with the pitch going forward as he feels it, but its very aggressive in my opinion to put it above Webster's. I saw a plus change and the feedback from sources who saw him before coming over to the organization agreed. |
|
