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 philsbosoxfan on Nov 1, 2012 8:09:59 GMT -5
Chris, what's your opinion of Cecchini's potential as a second baseman ? I've seen where a source that I have some degree of respect for feels he could and maybe should play there. (my words), thx
|
|
|
Post by Chris Mellen on Nov 1, 2012 18:28:57 GMT -5
Chris, what's your opinion of Cecchini's potential as a second baseman ? I've seen where a source that I have some degree of respect for feels he could and maybe should play there. (my words), thx I don't think it is out of the question because anything can happen, but I have seen the skills and defensive tools for Garin Cecchini to stick at third. He has some work to go in terms of becoming more crisp, loose, and fluid at the position though. I have his defensive ceiling as average-to-solid-average at third. If the skills don't progress enough, I see a corner outfield slot more likely over second base given the way he presently moves. I do believe that between Will Middlebrooks, Xander Bogaerts, and Garin Cecchini, one will end up moving. My gut feel and pure opinion is that it will end up being Cecchini.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 1, 2012 20:06:05 GMT -5
By moving do you mean to the OF? Or traded?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 2, 2012 12:40:47 GMT -5
By moving do you mean to the OF? Or traded? Why is it that I always read the name Cecchini and then hear/see the word "trade" attached to it? Why should the Sox be eager to deal a kid with excellent plate discipline, with good speed, a projectable future of decent power, good defense, and the ability to play another position if need be? The Sox are not overly populated in corner OF depth, and unless WMB drastically expands his plate discipline, his future could be questionable. For me, WMB should be the trade bait down the road - somebody who puts up decent power numbers despite a mediocre OBP. I'd rather keep the high OBP guy with decent power.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Nov 2, 2012 15:00:23 GMT -5
Calling WMB power's just DECENT is a little frustrating.
WMB is the new Reddick around here, people will hate on him until we trade him for a reliever and then he'll hit 200 HR's and the same people will call Ben a moron.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 2, 2012 16:29:42 GMT -5
Calling WMB power's just DECENT is a little frustrating. WMB is the new Reddick around here, people will hate on him until we trade him for a reliever and then he'll hit 200 HR's and the same people will call Ben a moron. Relax. I wasn't calling on the Sox to deal WMB for a friggin reliever. And I sure as heck am NOT calling on them to deal WMB now or anytime in the immediate future. I'm talking about when/if Cecchini comes up and is the .350 OBP+ hitter that I think he's going to be. And yes, decent was an understatement that I take back. He has "good" power. Is that better? The point is that unless he improves his OBP and if Cecchini is a good 50 points OBP better than WMB, and there is a need for a #2 type starting pitcher, a hitter three or four years into his career like WMB could attract that front-line starting pitcher the Sox always need. But then again, if Bogaerts and this is a huge IF, if Bogaerts maintains being a sound SS, and you have WMB at 3b, then Cecchini for LF, if not 2b, is always a possibility, too. The point isn't to denigrate WMB, but rather to ask the question why does Cecchini automatically get downgraded to trade bait rather than potential Red Sox all-star caliber on-base asset which he could very well be? I don't like dealing guys with advanced plate discipline that can hit, play strong defense, and even run. And I do think his power will increase. I'm not saying he's Bagwell, but when the Sox dealt him, they ignored his plate discipline and focused on the 4 HRs he hit and ignored all the doubles. Obviously Cecchini won't be Bagwell, but he could very well be a strong asset for the Sox, and if I have a choice between player A with a .300 OBP and a .450 SA and player B with a .350 OBP and a .425 SA, and everything else is pretty equal, then I'd prefer player B.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 2, 2012 17:15:55 GMT -5
WMB is the new Reddick around here, people will hate on him until we trade him for a reliever and then he'll hit 200 HR's and the same people will call Ben a moron. I think people around here like Middlebrooks just fine... Also, most of the people who thought Reddick wouldn't be good are the ones who still don't think he's all that good and are defending the Bailey trade. Getting this back to Cecchini, we're probably three years away from having the "problem" of he and Middlebrooks being logjammed. The reason people are hearing Cecchini's name in trade talks around here is that he's a more flawed player than he showed at Greenville. He's a very nice, young player who is early in his development and has All-Star upside still, but he's a long way from that, arguably just as far as Blake Swihart (who had a worse season statistically). There's a fair chance that Cecchini doesn't figure out his flaws - specifically that he never learns to hit left handed pitchers. If a player has a season that is, statistically, a bit ahead of where he's at skills-wise, that player is likely going to be brought up as a trade candidate.Cecchini fits that profile. It doesn't mean any of us want the Red Sox to trade him, just that he might be a sensible piece. Personally, I'd only want to see him moved as part of a deal for an all-star level outfielder or starting pitcher. Otherwise, he's worth holding onto. Nobody is advocating the Sox give him up for Jason Berken.
|
|
|
Post by mantush on Nov 2, 2012 17:33:55 GMT -5
To be honest, it may be smart to move Cecchini because of his plate discipline and the value that it has in trades. I think the league, as a whole, is beginning to undervalue slugging. Keeping WMB to hedge against the market could be smart.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 2, 2012 19:33:11 GMT -5
To be honest, it may be smart to move Cecchini because of his plate discipline and the value that it has in trades. I think the league, as a whole, is beginning to undervalue slugging. Keeping WMB to hedge against the market could be smart. You don't trade somebody because they have plate discipline. You KEEP them because they have plate discipline and you trade somebody because they don't have plate discipline. I think on-base is becoming more of a value as the on-base averages are down and it's tougher to get on base. I understand that Cecchini could get hurt, never figure out lefties, and isn't somebody you trade for a reliever or #5 starter, but I think he'll be better than a "piece" in a trade. I think in a few years, he might be a better option at 3b or he might be a corner OF option. And as far as Reddick goes, I'm not going to lie. I was in the camp that Kalish would be a better player and I was OK with Reddick going in a deal figuring he'd Shea Hillenbrand himself out of the league sooner or later. To his credit, he learned to show some patience (I think he walked over 50 times this year), and he mashed in a tough ballpark (which also explains his lower BA). Hopefully WMB goes the way of Reddick instead of Hillenbrand, but again I'm not "hating on" WMB - I'm just trying to call attention to a player who I think could be very underrated.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 2, 2012 23:51:41 GMT -5
I think on-base is becoming more of a value as the on-base averages are down and it's tougher to get on base. That's backwards, actually. As league OBP gets lower, power becomes more important because it's less likely that a team can string together a long sequence of singles and walks.
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Nov 3, 2012 7:10:13 GMT -5
But as the league OBP gets lower isn't a player with good OBP skills a scarcer commodity who the the market will seek for?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 3, 2012 8:04:59 GMT -5
I don't know about market value, I'm just commenting on the relative value of SLG versus OBP in terms of scoring runs.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 3, 2012 8:28:36 GMT -5
I think on-base is becoming more of a value as the on-base averages are down and it's tougher to get on base. That's backwards, actually. As league OBP gets lower, power becomes more important because it's less likely that a team can string together a long sequence of singles and walks. No, I disagree with you on this. As the league OBP gets lower, it's more important to have that "scarce" OBP guy because while everybody else is bashing solo homers and getting themselves out during their many slumps, you have a guy who can be aboard when somebody smacks one out. The fundamental skill of getting on base will always be of the utmost importance, and you don't trade somebody because of their ability to get on base. I took issue with the quote because the Sox offense got away from guys who can get on-base towards the Carl Crawfords, Jarrod Saltalamacchias, Mike Aviles, and Cody Rosses of the world, guys who can launch a ball, but will hack away until they do so, getting themselves out with a lot more frequency. Guys who can get on base are the antidote to this problem, so if you get one, you don't rush to trade one away as if the ability to get on base is more of a fungible disposable asset to another organization than our own.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 15, 2012 9:06:21 GMT -5
Marc Hulet's Red Sox top 15 prospect list is out ( link): 1. Xander Bogaerts 2. Matt Barnes 3. Jackie Bradley 4. Allen Webster 5. Garin Cecchini 6. Henry Owens 7. Blake Swihart 8. Jose Iglesias 9. Deven Marrero 10. Brandon Workman 11. Drake Britton 12. Bryce Brentz 13. Brandon Jacobs 14. Anthony Ranaudo 15. Mookie Betts
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 15, 2012 9:09:28 GMT -5
Holy Mookie Betts! I know he has his supporters, but wow.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Nov 15, 2012 9:25:32 GMT -5
Probably another example where the last guy on a list is a wild card pick. Others, like BP, tend to do the regular list and then pick that guy separately, but I think we've seen many examples where the 15th (or 30th on BA, etc) is more of a shot in the dark kind of guy.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 15, 2012 9:36:32 GMT -5
Also, most of the people who thought Reddick wouldn't be good are the ones who still don't think he's all that good and are defending the Bailey trade. Whoa there Nelly! I signed onto that trade (after it happened - I wasn't consulted) with a caveat on Bailey's health concerns, but that was before we found out the Sox had spent all their money and Bailey + Ross = not enough left in the till to sign Kuroda. Essentially they had no business dealing minimum salary & prospects for an arb guy. Very frustrating period for the armchair GM all around. As for Cecchini/Middlebrooks, if Cecchini pans out, say in AAA, and they look like equivalent players, you trade the established major leaguer for equal value in a position of need and take your chance on the unproven prospect with more years of control. That's the theory anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 15, 2012 13:25:31 GMT -5
Yeah, Callis basically admitted that the fact that the top 10 is what makes it online and into the BA magazine factors into his rankings. There's always a "I want to make sure this guy gets in" situation when you're up against an arbitrary length of the list.
The thing with Betts is that if scouts see him on the right night, they love him. But on other nights he doesn't look good at all. If you follow the link, Friendofthesite Mike Newman says he wouldn't have ranked Betts that high, and would've put Vinicio in there instead.
It's funny, I tend to disagree with Hulet's lists, but I don't find much to disagree with in this one until Betts. As Marc Normandin joked on Twitter, he's maybe the 8th-best "B" prospect in the system, nevermind 15th overall.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Nov 15, 2012 14:03:53 GMT -5
Holy Mookie Betts! I know he has his supporters, but wow. Took the words right out of my mouth.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 15, 2012 15:10:07 GMT -5
I find it interesting that Cecchini is constantly ranked higher than Swihart. I know Cecchini hit much better last year, but their offensive ceilings aren't that different and Swihart is potentially a much more valuable defensive player. Swihart is also a year younger.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 15, 2012 15:31:03 GMT -5
I find it interesting that Cecchini is constantly ranked higher than Swihart. I know Cecchini hit much better last year, but their offensive ceilings aren't that different and Swihart is potentially a much more valuable defensive player. Swihart is also a year younger. Callis had Swihart one spot higher that Cecchini. I suppose it's all in what you value. Swihart has the higher overall ceiling because of position, but Cecchini is somewhat closer to reaching his. Almost every list I've seen has Cecchini, Swihart and Owens lumped together, and I don't know that there's a whole ton to separate them at this point other than personal preference.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 15, 2012 15:50:53 GMT -5
I knew I liked Jim Callis.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Nov 15, 2012 17:29:43 GMT -5
The difference between the Red Sox minor league this year than the others is that we have about 6 to 10 kids pretty close to helping at various degress. The difference is this time they have a 2nd wave that has very good talent also. We really never had that The 2nd wave is Swihart and Owens and Cecchini. I also feel maybe WMB could slide over to 1B and when Cecchini is ready take 3B. It's just an idea to keep our own talent.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 15, 2012 19:05:20 GMT -5
I find it interesting that Cecchini is constantly ranked higher than Swihart. I know Cecchini hit much better last year, but their offensive ceilings aren't that different and Swihart is potentially a much more valuable defensive player. Swihart is also a year younger. Well, for one, Cecchini has much more advanced plate discipline that Swihart does. Swihart certainly has a similar offensive ceiling, but Cecchini has shown more in terms of translating his tools into success on the field. Cecchini may be one year older, but he walked nearly twice as often and struck out less than Swihart last year. Cecchini also stole 51 bases at an elite 89.4% clip, which, although unlikely to be maintained at the major league level, should still translate into double-digit steals and solid baserunning, which is not really in Swihart's arsenal.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Nov 15, 2012 19:33:57 GMT -5
Here's the best thing I took out of the article, regarding Bogaerts:
"The contact I spoke with, though, thinks he’ll remain at his current position stating that the prospect has made “impressive fundamental improvements.” He added that Bogaerts possesses a strong arm good range and athleticism."
|
|
|