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.
Sickels' top 20 Red Sox prospects
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 19, 2015 9:58:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 19, 2015 10:42:48 GMT -5
14 B- or higher prospects. I'd say that is pretty darn good. I wonder how that compares to years past and other teams currently.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,963
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 19, 2015 11:35:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 19, 2015 12:21:24 GMT -5
From the "Others" section: Sheev Palpatine, Senator from Naboo. Whaaa?
I find that I like Sickels' work a lot. It's much better than an arbitrary "top 10 or 11", and provides more information (like BA, BP, etc. are now doing) in that it grades players.
I also agree with the low scores of players like Kopech, Ball, Stank, etc.: when it comes to pitching I guess I now prefer a combination of ceiling, floor, proximity and health. To me, those guys are so far away that they could be anything, or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jan 19, 2015 12:28:05 GMT -5
From the "Others" section: Sheev Palpatine, Senator from Naboo. Whaaa? I find that I like Sickels' work a lot. It's much better than an arbitrary "top 10 or 11", and provides more information (like BA, BP, etc. are now doing) in that it grades players. I also agree with the low scores of players like Kopech, Ball, Stank, etc.: when it comes to pitching I guess I now prefer a combination of ceiling, floor, proximity and health. To me, those guys are so far away that they could be anything, or nothing. The simple grades are nice in a way, but I'd take BP/Kiley's grading by tool + substantive reports over this kind of thing any day. This is basically just a list appended with a single grade and two sentence blurbs that offer nothing of interest to people already familiar with the Sox system.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 19, 2015 12:31:26 GMT -5
From the "Others" section: Sheev Palpatine, Senator from Naboo. Whaaa? I find that I like Sickels' work a lot. It's much better than an arbitrary "top 10 or 11", and provides more information (like BA, BP, etc. are now doing) in that it grades players. I also agree with the low scores of players like Kopech, Ball, Stank, etc.: when it comes to pitching I guess I now prefer a combination of ceiling, floor, proximity and health. To me, those guys are so far away that they could be anything, or nothing. The simple grades are nice in a way, but I'd take BP/Kiley's grading by tool + substantive reports over this kind of thing any day. This is basically just a list appended with a single grade and two sentence blurbs that offer nothing of interest to people already familiar with the Sox system. True, but Sickels was the first to show anything beyond a sequential ordering of players. I prefer Kiley's approach to anything else, now, but I put him and Sickels higher because they don't stop ranking prospects because they reached #10.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 20, 2015 0:02:50 GMT -5
For surprises biggest one to me was Hembee's inclusion, Guerra's exclusion. For all the B's you can pretty much come close to calling them equal and you wouldn't be far off.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 20, 2015 3:25:41 GMT -5
From the "Others" section: Sheev Palpatine, Senator from Naboo. Whaaa? I find that I like Sickels' work a lot. It's much better than an arbitrary "top 10 or 11", and provides more information (like BA, BP, etc. are now doing) in that it grades players. I also agree with the low scores of players like Kopech, Ball, Stank, etc.: when it comes to pitching I guess I now prefer a combination of ceiling, floor, proximity and health. To me, those guys are so far away that they could be anything, or nothing. The simple grades are nice in a way, but I'd take BP/Kiley's grading by tool + substantive reports over this kind of thing any day. This is basically just a list appended with a single grade and two sentence blurbs that offer nothing of interest to people already familiar with the Sox system. Quoting Sickels: Finally, keep in mind that all grades are shorthand. You have to read the full comment in the book for the full analysis about a player, the letter grade only tells you so much. A Grade C prospect in rookie ball could end up being very impressive, while a Grade C prospect in Triple-A is likely just a future role player.How much info does BA and BP give in their public top lists ? Comparing Sickles free list to the other's paid books is grossly unfair.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 20, 2015 5:21:10 GMT -5
The simple grades are nice in a way, but I'd take BP/Kiley's grading by tool + substantive reports over this kind of thing any day. This is basically just a list appended with a single grade and two sentence blurbs that offer nothing of interest to people already familiar with the Sox system. Quoting Sickels: Finally, keep in mind that all grades are shorthand. You have to read the full comment in the book for the full analysis about a player, the letter grade only tells you so much. A Grade C prospect in rookie ball could end up being very impressive, while a Grade C prospect in Triple-A is likely just a future role player.How much info does BA and BP give in their public top lists ? Comparing Sickles free list to the other's paid books is grossly unfair. Sickles free list gives more than BA, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jan 20, 2015 7:00:02 GMT -5
The simple grades are nice in a way, but I'd take BP/Kiley's grading by tool + substantive reports over this kind of thing any day. This is basically just a list appended with a single grade and two sentence blurbs that offer nothing of interest to people already familiar with the Sox system. Quoting Sickels: Finally, keep in mind that all grades are shorthand. You have to read the full comment in the book for the full analysis about a player, the letter grade only tells you so much. A Grade C prospect in rookie ball could end up being very impressive, while a Grade C prospect in Triple-A is likely just a future role player.How much info does BA and BP give in their public top lists ? Comparing Sickles free list to the other's paid books is grossly unfair. A very fair point. Have you bought any of his books? I'd love to see an example of a full writeup. If it's more in depth than I'm assuming it is, and on par with or superior to the other three resources, I'll be happy to give it a buy.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 20, 2015 9:52:09 GMT -5
Quoting Sickels: Finally, keep in mind that all grades are shorthand. You have to read the full comment in the book for the full analysis about a player, the letter grade only tells you so much. A Grade C prospect in rookie ball could end up being very impressive, while a Grade C prospect in Triple-A is likely just a future role player.How much info does BA and BP give in their public top lists ? Comparing Sickles free list to the other's paid books is grossly unfair. A very fair point. Have you bought any of his books? I'd love to see an example of a full writeup. If it's more in depth than I'm assuming it is, and on par with or superior to the other three resources, I'll be happy to give it a buy. I haven't bought any books since I moved to the Philippines which I believe was before he went independent.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 20, 2015 11:50:42 GMT -5
I have always liked lists that push guys with ceiling. Carlos Asuje is a nice player, but he's doesn't have much of a chance of making an large impact on the major league team. I'd rather read about guys like Acosta, Guerra, and Espinoza who may not be as advanced as guys like Asuje and Hembree but have tons more upside even if they are far more raw.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 20, 2015 12:17:52 GMT -5
I have always liked lists that push guys with ceiling. Carlos Asuje is a nice player, but he's doesn't have much of a chance of making an large impact on the major league team. I'd rather read about guys like Acosta, Guerra, and Espinoza who may not be as advanced as guys like Asuje and Hembree but have tons more upside even if they are far more raw. I tend to think differently. Too much emphasis on ceiling puts guys like Adam Miller or Brandon Wood in your top prospects list year after year. Maybe that's more of a product of over valuing certain tools though. For example: I like command more than velocity and bat control more than raw power.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 20, 2015 13:59:09 GMT -5
I have always liked lists that push guys with ceiling. Carlos Asuje is a nice player, but he's doesn't have much of a chance of making an large impact on the major league team. I'd rather read about guys like Acosta, Guerra, and Espinoza who may not be as advanced as guys like Asuje and Hembree but have tons more upside even if they are far more raw. I tend to think differently. Too much emphasis on ceiling puts guys like Adam Miller or Brandon Wood in your top prospects list year after year. Maybe that's more of a product of over valuing certain tools though. For example: I like command more than velocity and bat control more than raw power. A player with great velocity and athleticism might improve his command, but it's unlikely that a player with great command will improve his velocity. As for the players you mentioned, Brandon Wood would have been in anyone's top ten as he had great raw power and showed great bat control in the minors too. Adam Miller's career devolved because of injuries not a lack of command. In general a team like the Red Sox needs to produce every day players and I'd like to hear more about the guys who have a chance to be big contributors, as opposed to the guys who are utility players at best.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 20, 2015 14:34:21 GMT -5
Quoting Sickels: Finally, keep in mind that all grades are shorthand. You have to read the full comment in the book for the full analysis about a player, the letter grade only tells you so much. A Grade C prospect in rookie ball could end up being very impressive, while a Grade C prospect in Triple-A is likely just a future role player.How much info does BA and BP give in their public top lists ? Comparing Sickles free list to the other's paid books is grossly unfair. A very fair point. Have you bought any of his books? I'd love to see an example of a full writeup. If it's more in depth than I'm assuming it is, and on par with or superior to the other three resources, I'll be happy to give it a buy. I bought the handbook in 2012 and 2013. It's a pretty good as a broad reference for players across the game. I note that one Rays scout (Rico Brogna, as a matter of fact) had it with him at McCoy one time and he checked it a couple times. However, the BA book has more players, I believe, as I don't think Sickels goes 30(/31) deep on every system like they do. FWIW, in Sickels' case, I don't believe he actually travels, and that therefore, being in Kansas, he doesn't see this system first-hand. I have always thought that this is why he tends to favor players who are higher in the system - more reports to get from whoever he contacts. Tough to pump a guy like Guerra too much if you don't have reports on him, which we're lucky enough to have first-hand from ST and Instructs, as well as from other contacts. If you have the inclination, I don't think it's a poor purchase. Just depends on what you're looking for. I just think it's really hard for one guy to cover all 30 teams by himself like Sickels does. As for this list, I too found the exclusion of Guerra (even if you want to pump the brakes, I don't see how he's behind the group of C+'s here - I'll call that one a straight-up miss) and inclusion of Hembree (how is an "effective middle reliever" this system's #16 prospect?) curious, as well as the respective placements of Ranaudo and Johnson (although I think that is at least kind of arguable if you have the right information and opinion of each guy...). The Ranaudo writeup reads like you'd write it if you were scouting his stats rather than his stuff though, imo. I get Cecchini being where he is because he's always been Sickels' binky, and we all have those, so hey, if he believes in him, then he should keep putting him that high.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 20, 2015 14:44:36 GMT -5
Moonstone; sometimes, you're too literal.
As I said, I prefer command to velocity and bat control to power. You can prefer the opposite. I can provide hundreds of players to back my point and you could do the same. Neither of us is correct and neither of us is wrong.
Perhaps, where you misinterpretted my statement is that I did not specifically clarify that my preference for those tools is NOT to the exclusion of the other.
I will provide other, more generic, examples: I'll take a hitter with 45 power and 70 bat control over a hitter with the opposite skill set. Sure, hitter B COULD become something special while hitter A probably won't, but it's much more likely that hitter B is nothing. On the pitching side I'll take a pitcher with 50 velocity (let's be real; less than 50 velo almost doesn't exist anymore in the majors) and 70 command as opposed to a pitcher with 70 velocity and 40 command (a much more common occurence). Pitcher A is likely a 4/5 who's steady for years while Pitcher B COULD figure it out and become Clayton Kershaw, but is more likely a AAAA reliever.
I'm trying very hard to be non-confrontational here, so please try to understand that I disagree with your beliefs AND THAT'S OK! You do not need to reply back.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jan 20, 2015 15:00:27 GMT -5
A very fair point. Have you bought any of his books? I'd love to see an example of a full writeup. If it's more in depth than I'm assuming it is, and on par with or superior to the other three resources, I'll be happy to give it a buy. I bought the handbook in 2012 and 2013. It's a pretty good as a broad reference for players across the game. I note that one Rays scout (Rico Brogna, as a matter of fact) had it with him at McCoy one time and he checked it a couple times. However, the BA book has more players, I believe, as I don't think Sickels goes 30(/31) deep on every system like they do. FWIW, in Sickels' case, I don't believe he actually travels, and that therefore, being in Kansas, he doesn't see this system first-hand. I have always thought that this is why he tends to favor players who are higher in the system - more reports to get from whoever he contacts. Tough to pump a guy like Guerra too much if you don't have reports on him, which we're lucky enough to have first-hand from ST and Instructs, as well as from other contacts. If you have the inclination, I don't think it's a poor purchase. Just depends on what you're looking for. I just think it's really hard for one guy to cover all 30 teams by himself like Sickels does. As for this list, I too found the exclusion of Guerra (even if you want to pump the brakes, I don't see how he's behind the group of C+'s here - I'll call that one a straight-up miss) and inclusion of Hembree (how is an "effective middle reliever" this system's #16 prospect?) curious, as well as the respective placements of Ranaudo and Johnson (although I think that is at least kind of arguable if you have the right information and opinion of each guy...). The Ranaudo writeup reads like you'd write it if you were scouting his stats rather than his stuff though, imo. I get Cecchini being where he is because he's always been Sickels' binky, and we all have those, so hey, if he believes in him, then he should keep putting him that high. Yeah, that point about scouting stats rather than the player is the vibe I get from reading a lot of his lists/blurbs. Of course, Ray is right that I shouldn't criticize him without checking out the actual product. Maybe I'll give it a look, although as it is, I don't really have enough time to completely scope out every BA/BP/FG report as much as I'd like to (and, I'll add that $26 seems a tad high for single PDF file, at least when you compare it to an annual all-access BP subscription. I know the BA Handbook is even pricier, but that's a must-have, and as you note, I would think it's far more comprehensive).
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Jan 20, 2015 15:17:05 GMT -5
Bryce Brentz belongs in the top 20
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Jan 20, 2015 15:29:06 GMT -5
Bryce Brentz belongs in the top 20 Why?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 20, 2015 15:37:15 GMT -5
I haven't the slightest idea as to what you are talking about. From reading the above paragraph I have no idea what your beliefs are nor the confidence that you understand mine.
In general I will start by stating that if you reply to one of my posts and I feel the need to write back I am going to do that. This is a discussion forum after all. I have absolutely no problem with others disagreeing with me as long as they don't use childish rejoinder, logical fallacies, and at least attempt to respond in an intelligent and cogent manner. If you want to post something without being challenged there are plenty of other forums for that. This particular forum has always encouraged debate, which is why I continue to post my comments here.
My original post wasn't about which types of prospects I prefer necessarily, it's just that I would like to read more and hear more about exciting players who could be stars especially at the back end of the list. After you get past the top ten in any organization, you are on to players who have some warts either from a tools side or an experience side. A guy who really had better bat control than most anyone else in baseball, would probably not be the type of player we are referring to unless he was a 1B.
Carlos Asuje for example is a nice player and I enjoy his agent's column. But in the end he's a 23 year old in A ball. If he does make the majors it's extremely unlikely that he's going to have any sort of impact. Myself I would rather read about Javy Guerra who flashes a nifty glove and plus bat speed, but obviously needs to refine his game.
As for your examples, a good system needs some of both types of players. You need players like Brian Johnson who are experienced and know what they are doing on the mound, but really don't throw hard. But you also need guys like Michael Koppech who throw in the upper 90s but are a long way from the major leagues. Too many Brian Johnson's you'll never graduate the stars that you need to win. Too many Michael Koppech's you'll have tons of flame outs and be forced to rely on below replacement level talent at key points in the season.
I think Sickels has Ranaudo, Marrero, Hembree and Asujae a little high and Guerra, Koppech, and Chavis a little low.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 20, 2015 16:04:41 GMT -5
I haven't the slightest idea as to what you are talking about. From reading the above paragraph I have no idea what your beliefs are nor the confidence that you understand mine. In general I will start by stating that if you reply to one of my posts and I feel the need to write back I am going to do that. This is a discussion forum after all. I have absolutely no problem with others disagreeing with me as long as they don't use childish rejoinder, logical fallacies, and at least attempt to respond in an intelligent and cogent manner. If you want to post something without being challenged there are plenty of other forums for that. This particular forum has always encouraged debate, which is why I continue to post my comments here. My original post wasn't about which types of prospects I prefer necessarily, it's just that I would like to read more and hear more about exciting players who could be stars especially at the back end of the list. After you get past the top ten in any organization, you are on to players who have some warts either from a tools side or an experience side. A guy who really had better bat control than most anyone else in baseball, would probably not be the type of player we are referring to unless he was a 1B. Carlos Asuje for example is a nice player and I enjoy his agent's column. But in the end he's a 23 year old in A ball. If he does make the majors it's extremely unlikely that he's going to have any sort of impact. Myself I would rather read about Javy Guerra who flashes a nifty glove and plus bat speed, but obviously needs to refine his game. As for your examples, a good system needs some of both types of players. You need players like Brian Johnson who are experienced and know what they are doing on the mound, but really don't throw hard. But you also need guys like Michael Koppech who throw in the upper 90s but are a long way from the major leagues. Too many Brian Johnson's you'll never graduate the stars that you need to win. Too many Michael Koppech's you'll have tons of flame outs and be forced to rely on below replacement level talent at key points in the season. I think Sickels has Ranaudo, Marrero, Hembree and Asujae a little high and Guerra, Koppech, and Chavis a little low. I've been posting here longer than you and have always enjoyed the educational debates. I partially based my response to you on witnessing numerous arguments between you and Jmei. For the record: I too disagree with him more often than not. However the one problem I have with this board is that many people see a name used as an example (Brandon Wood) and begin to discuss that specific player. I typically look at baseball in terms of trends and generalities, so when I see a name in most cases I use it as a type of player rather than "this guy is the only example". Now, after seeing your more detailed response I better understand your point. But, I don't think looking at a ranking system is the best way to learn about fringe lottery tickets.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 20, 2015 16:53:57 GMT -5
Jmei is a different story. Just make a clear and understandable argument, don't use logical fallacies, and don't try to counter a point purely by ridiculing it (that's rude), and you'll be fine.
I was just saying that Wood didn't really fit as an example of the point I thought you were trying to make. Wood was a very well regarded prospect that had excellent minor league statistics. He wasn't a big lumbering lottery ticket with huge raw power but very poor underlying performance. Miller wasn't a Nuke Laloosh type. He was an excellent prospect with a great track record who just couldn't stay on the mound.
Yeah I am not sure I would call the guys I am referring to fringe lottery tickets as they have shown some skill on the ballfield. Guerra hit .270 as an 18 year old in the GCL for instance. Koppech was deemed worthy of a 1st round pick. The site has Koppech and Guerra a lot higher than Sickels likely because of their ceilings. Quite frankly I would agree that they are both better prospects than Asuje and Hembree.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 20, 2015 17:02:28 GMT -5
Clearly Sickels rates prospects lower when they're further away. I just pay less attention to those rankings.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 20, 2015 17:06:41 GMT -5
Clearly Sickels rates prospects lower when they're further away. I just pay less attention to those rankings. Yeah clearly....though he was as high on Devers as everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 20, 2015 17:45:32 GMT -5
Clearly Sickels rates prospects lower when they're further away. I just pay less attention to those rankings. Yeah clearly....though he was as high on Devers as everyone else. Well, this site grades him a potential 7 and currently a 6, which is higher than B+/borderline B
|
|
|