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.
Top 100/top 10 prospect rankings 2015
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 5, 2015 16:55:19 GMT -5
I just did a quick scan through, and didn't see the Sox rankings in the BPro top 101 posted. Reprinted with a short summary of what they say in the annual:
17: Blake Swihart: Plus defense, MLB caliber bat, elite makeup. Could be an everyday catcher for a decade and "could be the best player on a contending team. 46: Henry Owens: Change-up easily grades as a plus pitch. Improving his fastball command his curve are the keys to him establishing self as a #3. 61: Manuel Margot: Above average bat-speed, surprising pop. Tools still unrefined, but total package of skills has "tremendous value at full potential." 65: Eduardo Rodriguez: Smooth, repeatable delivery, but inconsistent with command and velocity. Mid-rotation ceiling. 90: Rafael Devers: Physically maxed out and needs to improve defense at third. But the bat has the potential to be good enough to provide elite value even with no defensive contribution.
It's ok to be disappointed with the Owens rating, but it's important to note that the BPro team has certainly seen him more than the staffs of any other national publication. So "I disagree" is fair, but "they don't know what they are talking about" is whining.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 5, 2015 17:05:51 GMT -5
I just did a quick scan through, and didn't see the Sox rankings in the BPro top 101 posted. Reprinted with a short summary of what they say in the annual: 17: Blake Swihart: Plus defense, MLB caliber bat, elite makeup. Could be an everyday catcher for a decade and "could be the best player on a contending team. I'm guessing they forgot to add "unless that team has Mookie Betts on it."
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 5, 2015 17:33:37 GMT -5
Or Xander Bogaerts. The Red Sox have three players born in 1992 who I honestly, without exaggeration, think are talented enough to win an MVP someday in whatever season Mike Trout has a broken leg or decides to try pro basketball or something. It's pretty sweet.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 5, 2015 17:43:35 GMT -5
Matt Eddy at BA did a bit of research trying to find prospects who made contact at an above avg rate and jhit for extra base power at an above avg rate. Obviously Mookie excluded because he is no longer a prospect. Here is the link: www.baseballamerica.com/minors/baseballist-dozen-prospects-power-barrel-control/Swihart and Manuel Margot are the Red Sox on the list. Reading that I was reminded just how good Margot's full season debut was. If he continues on this trajectory he'll be a good one when you combine his offensive upside with the fact that most scouting reports have him as a plus defensive CF.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Feb 5, 2015 17:54:15 GMT -5
Matt Eddy at BA did a bit of research trying to find prospects who made contact at an above avg rate and jhit for extra base power at an above avg rate. Obviously Mookie excluded because he is no longer a prospect. Here is the link: www.baseballamerica.com/minors/baseballist-dozen-prospects-power-barrel-control/Swihart and Manuel Margot are the Red Sox on the list. Reading that I was reminded just how good Margot's full season debut was. If he continues on this trajectory he'll be a good one when you combine his offensive upside with the fact that most scouting reports have him as a plus defensive CF. Very cool...when I first read the list I thought it was comprehensive of players who met the criteria. Thats not the case as Asuaje would have qualified I think. Devers is another guy who could meet this criteria after his first full season and would certainly be deemed worthy with regards to prospect status.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,700
|
Post by nomar on Feb 5, 2015 18:02:28 GMT -5
Or Xander Bogaerts. The Red Sox have three players born in 1992 who I honestly, without exaggeration, think are talented enough to win an MVP someday in whatever season Mike Trout has a broken leg or decides to try pro basketball or something. It's pretty sweet. Hypothetically speaking: With voters being the way they are, I don't think Swihart is an MVP candidate with his bat. I think he'll be an above average hitter at a scarce position, an incredibly valuable player, but the type who loses votes to the 1B OPSing 50 points higher than him.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 5, 2015 21:04:44 GMT -5
Or Xander Bogaerts. The Red Sox have three players born in 1992 who I honestly, without exaggeration, think are talented enough to win an MVP someday in whatever season Mike Trout has a broken leg or decides to try pro basketball or something. It's pretty sweet. Hypothetically speaking: With voters being the way they are, I don't think Swihart is an MVP candidate with his bat. I think he'll be an above average hitter at a scarce position, an incredibly valuable player, but the type who loses votes to the 1B OPSing 50 points higher than him. Maybe I'm naive, but I think voters are more savvy than they were a few years back. Cabrera over Trout was silly, but overall they've been doing a much better job. Also, I think Swihart is going to provide enough batting average to appeal to the remaining flat-earthers. "He's a catcher who hits .300" still has caché with those folks.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Feb 5, 2015 22:20:06 GMT -5
A strong case could be made for Margot as our top prospect already. Look at all the love Byron Buxton keeps getting. Margot has a lot of the same attributes.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 6, 2015 0:35:15 GMT -5
A strong case could be made for Margot as our top prospect already. Look at all the love Byron Buxton keeps getting. Margot has a lot of the same attributes. True, but he's missing a key attribute, which is power. I think Buxton is expected to hit 25 or more homers at some point in his career while Margot is seen as a guy who'll hit 10 - 15 homers per year with an outside chance that he hits with more power than that. I would think Margot might be more of a basestealer and somebody you bat atop the order while Buxton is a middle of the order type of hitter. I don't see how you'd rank Margot ahead of Swihart at this point or Henry Owens. Eventually, yes, he could be the #1 prospect on the Sox, although Devers might have something to say about that. Of course, Devers won't be the standout on defense that Margot is, but he might be a pure masher at the plate, somebody who projects to bat 3rd or 4th in a good lineup, which for the Sox is a rare thing to develop. Over the last twenty-five years they've developed Mo Vaughn and Nomar as middle of the order hitters and most likely Bogaerts joins that short list.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 6, 2015 7:41:13 GMT -5
Matt Eddy at BA did a bit of research trying to find prospects who made contact at an above avg rate and jhit for extra base power at an above avg rate. Obviously Mookie excluded because he is no longer a prospect. Here is the link: www.baseballamerica.com/minors/baseballist-dozen-prospects-power-barrel-control/Swihart and Manuel Margot are the Red Sox on the list. Reading that I was reminded just how good Margot's full season debut was. If he continues on this trajectory he'll be a good one when you combine his offensive upside with the fact that most scouting reports have him as a plus defensive CF. Yeah, I'm more and more convinced that Margot is underrated in this offseason's national rankings, but that's fine. I assume people are just being cautious because it's mostly low-A results with a SSS piece of A+ success, plus he's been overshadowed by the surfeit of young talent in Pawtucket and Boston. He'll have next year to burst onto the national scene. It's well within the realm of possibility that the Sox could have legit Top-15 prospects at every middle-of-the-diamond position over a 3-4 year period (Bogaerts/SS, Betts/2B, Swihart/C, Margot/CF). Oh, and ... "surfeit"!! Rarely get to use that in a sentence ...
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Feb 6, 2015 8:15:50 GMT -5
A strong case could be made for Margot as our top prospect already. Look at all the love Byron Buxton keeps getting. Margot has a lot of the same attributes. I love me some Margot and agree that he has a generally similar set of skills to Buxton, but he isn't close to the prospect Buxton is (or was heading into last year). Margot hit a combined .293/.356/.462 in 2014 with most at bats coming in low-A. Buxton hit .322/.411/.509 split between low and high A in 2013. Buxton is basically better at everything than Margot, so I'm not sure what "looking at the love Byron Buxton keeps getting" tells us.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 6, 2015 8:29:04 GMT -5
Agreed. Buxton isn't the #1 because of the type of prospect he is. He's the #1 because of the quality of prospect that he is.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 6, 2015 8:35:47 GMT -5
Margot is at the point that Betts was at last year. Underrated because people want to know if he can keep it up. Well, a poor man's Mookie Betts anyway. I realize he's a bit lower.
I love, love that K-rate though. If he starts in Salem, he's my pick for first promotion.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,195
|
Post by radiohix on Feb 6, 2015 13:08:58 GMT -5
A strong case could be made for Margot as our top prospect already. Look at all the love Byron Buxton keeps getting. Margot has a lot of the same attributes. True, but he's missing a key attribute, which is power. I think Buxton is expected to hit 25 or more homers at some point in his career while Margot is seen as a guy who'll hit 10 - 15 homers per year with an outside chance that he hits with more power than that. I would think Margot might be more of a basestealer and somebody you bat atop the order while Buxton is a middle of the order type of hitter. I don't see how you'd rank Margot ahead of Swihart at this point or Henry Owens. Eventually, yes, he could be the #1 prospect on the Sox, although Devers might have something to say about that. Of course, Devers won't be the standout on defense that Margot is, but he might be a pure masher at the plate, somebody who projects to bat 3rd or 4th in a good lineup, which for the Sox is a rare thing to develop. Over the last twenty-five years they've developed Mo Vaughn and Nomar as middle of the order hitters and most likely Bogaerts joins that short list. Let's say both prospects hit their cieling, which one would you take? The fast Gold Glove CFer with .840 OPS or the base clogging, average fielding first baseman with a .920 OPS? I'll take the first one without too much thinking
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 6, 2015 13:32:33 GMT -5
In 2014 terms, that's Carlos Gomez vs. Anthony Rizzo. Honestly, I think that's a really hard choice. B-Ref has Rizzo slightly more valuable. Fangraphs leans toward Gomez.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 6, 2015 14:19:56 GMT -5
To me it is the composition of roster that helps you decide there. If you need a slugger then Devers it is. If you need up the middle defense and atletiscism then Margot it is.
On purely personal preference I dig the long balls, specially if it comes from a guy who can hit too not just some hacker. So for me if Devers hits his ultimate ceiling I take him.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 6, 2015 15:03:47 GMT -5
The error bars are close. I'd say Devers has a slightly higher ceiling but it's arguable either way. They're both so far away that it's a tough conversation to have.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,962
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 6, 2015 17:13:55 GMT -5
True, but he's missing a key attribute, which is power. I think Buxton is expected to hit 25 or more homers at some point in his career while Margot is seen as a guy who'll hit 10 - 15 homers per year with an outside chance that he hits with more power than that. I would think Margot might be more of a basestealer and somebody you bat atop the order while Buxton is a middle of the order type of hitter. I don't see how you'd rank Margot ahead of Swihart at this point or Henry Owens. Eventually, yes, he could be the #1 prospect on the Sox, although Devers might have something to say about that. Of course, Devers won't be the standout on defense that Margot is, but he might be a pure masher at the plate, somebody who projects to bat 3rd or 4th in a good lineup, which for the Sox is a rare thing to develop. Over the last twenty-five years they've developed Mo Vaughn and Nomar as middle of the order hitters and most likely Bogaerts joins that short list. Let's say both prospects hit their cieling, which one would you take? The fast Gold Glove CFer with .840 OPS or the base clogging, average fielding first baseman with a .920 OPS? I'll take the first one without too much thinking If in this scenario you have Margot develop into a GG CF with .840 OPS (Ellsbury lifetime is .782 and he has one GG), then you have to grant that Devers might become a capable 3b.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 6, 2015 18:28:50 GMT -5
I just did a quick scan through, and didn't see the Sox rankings in the BPro top 101 posted. Reprinted with a short summary of what they say in the annual: 17: Blake Swihart: Plus defense, MLB caliber bat, elite makeup. Could be an everyday catcher for a decade and "could be the best player on a contending team. 46: Henry Owens: Change-up easily grades as a plus pitch. Improving his fastball command his curve are the keys to him establishing self as a #3. 61: Manuel Margot: Above average bat-speed, surprising pop. Tools still unrefined, but total package of skills has "tremendous value at full potential." 65: Eduardo Rodriguez: Smooth, repeatable delivery, but inconsistent with command and velocity. Mid-rotation ceiling. 90: Rafael Devers: Physically maxed out and needs to improve defense at third. But the bat has the potential to be good enough to provide elite value even with no defensive contribution. It's ok to be disappointed with the Owens rating, but it's important to note that the BPro team has certainly seen him more than the staffs of any other national publication. So "I disagree" is fair, but "they don't know what they are talking about" is whining. That has to be on the assumption that he doesn't grow any taller, right? It is, after all, not beyond the pale that an 18 year-old will do that.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Feb 6, 2015 20:30:00 GMT -5
The error bars are close. I'd say Devers has a slightly higher ceiling but it's arguable either way. They're both so far away that it's a tough conversation to have. I agree completely with your first two sentences, but I really don't think Margot is that far away. He'll likely get a good amount of time in AA this year and reach the majors next season (2016). I think sometimes it is overlooked that he ended last season a full three levels ahead of Devers.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 6, 2015 21:17:52 GMT -5
I just did a quick scan through, and didn't see the Sox rankings in the BPro top 101 posted. Reprinted with a short summary of what they say in the annual: 17: Blake Swihart: Plus defense, MLB caliber bat, elite makeup. Could be an everyday catcher for a decade and "could be the best player on a contending team. 46: Henry Owens: Change-up easily grades as a plus pitch. Improving his fastball command his curve are the keys to him establishing self as a #3. 61: Manuel Margot: Above average bat-speed, surprising pop. Tools still unrefined, but total package of skills has "tremendous value at full potential." 65: Eduardo Rodriguez: Smooth, repeatable delivery, but inconsistent with command and velocity. Mid-rotation ceiling. 90: Rafael Devers: Physically maxed out and needs to improve defense at third. But the bat has the potential to be good enough to provide elite value even with no defensive contribution. It's ok to be disappointed with the Owens rating, but it's important to note that the BPro team has certainly seen him more than the staffs of any other national publication. So "I disagree" is fair, but "they don't know what they are talking about" is whining. That has to be on the assumption that he doesn't grow any taller, right? It is, after all, not beyond the pale that an 18 year-old will do that. Or pick up a barbell. I'm assuming that they meant relative to being a third baseman for range, athletisism, etc. I've always viewed him as a likely first baseman in the future anyways so that doesn't surprise me.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Feb 7, 2015 0:06:31 GMT -5
I still have Swihart # 1 on my list but those Margot numbers cited in the article are so important that it gave me pause. He went up a notch in my estimation right there. Those are some of the most important characteristics a prospect can have. Add the speed and plus defense and his floor looks real decent. Buxton put up great numbers but it's a 1 year sample almost ( his rookie ball numbers were not that great ). He might still be over rated. He hasn't done it at higher levels yet. But is one of the top 3-4 prospects in baseball still. Many of the same characteristics which make Buxton rated so highly are in Margot's game and Margot's K rate is much better. I'm not saying MArgot equals Buxton but they are closer than people seem to think in my opinion.
Regarding the discussion of Swihart's value vs Bryant, I think every GM in baseball would trade Swihart for Bryant. Bryant might be a 2-3 time mvp candidate.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Feb 7, 2015 5:51:55 GMT -5
Many of the same characteristics which make Buxton rated so highly are in Margot's game So this is gonna be one of those things you keep repeating over and over after people explain why it's inaccurate, huh.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 7, 2015 8:09:03 GMT -5
Just got around to reading this. The most impressive part is that he's just about the youngest player on that list, and he's already in A+. Showing that level of contact even as he advances is no small thing. But he does have a way to go. Still, that lottery ticket is part of a much smaller pool of numbers. Short of injury, the risk of failure is much less for a player with that skill.
We should take note of the fact that the low strikeout rate has been highlighted on this site previously.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Feb 9, 2015 11:41:34 GMT -5
Are we assuming Barnes just misses the top 100? I wonder where Betts would rank if still eligible.
|
|
|