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 jeremynofakerbaker on Sept 6, 2012 1:47:10 GMT -5
cecchinis hustle and effort are always going 110%
hes very similar to a brian roberts type player (280-350obp 40+ 2b, 25+ steal guy)
hes proven this year he can stay healthy
he needs to prove he can hit lefties is the huge key, i feel salem will be a big test to see this with the mid season promotion you could fully see if hes a starter or platoon player vs righties
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Sept 6, 2012 11:44:26 GMT -5
Cecchini doesn't has even near the speed Brian Roberts has.
Pre-2012 Chase Headley is probably the optimistic projection.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Nov 20, 2012 0:03:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Nov 20, 2012 10:40:17 GMT -5
Citing Xander and Barnes as the only impact prospects in the system, and ignoring Jackie Bradley call into question the credibility of the writer.
I would also add Allen Webster and Henry Owens to that list.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Nov 20, 2012 12:43:16 GMT -5
I have my issues with the article as well, but he has a legitimate point about Bradley not really being an impact talent. Bradley is projected, even on this site, to be an above average regular on a 1st division team - that's really valuable, and he has a great chance of reaching that potential, which makes him valuable, but that's not really an "impact" talent.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Nov 20, 2012 13:11:28 GMT -5
Citing Xander and Barnes as the only impact prospects in the system, and ignoring Jackie Bradley call into question the credibility of the writer.I would also add Allen Webster and Henry Owens to that list. I wouldn't go that far. But. It really is kind of a strange, muddled, confusing argument he's making here, right? The only thing he states clearly is that he doesn't believe in Cecchini's power potential (though he doesn't mention the wrist injury). Which might be a fair point. But instead of basing his argument off of that observation, he decides to use that one observation as a critique of the high-end talent in the entire organization. Without, it seems, any other kind of support. He starts out by arguing that the state of the Red Sox farm system is weak because fangraphs ranked Cecchini as the Sox 5th best prospect this year but, "In 2009, the young third baseman might have been the fifth best prospect on a Greenville team featuring Casey Kelly, Anthony Rizzo, Will Middlebrooks and Ryan Lavarnway." This argument only seems to work in hindsight or if someone were rating prospects purely on ceiling. And then also disregarding the chance that Cecchini reaches his. For some reason. Casey Kelly was the best prospect in the system at that point, so no argument there, but Rizzo and Middlebrooks would likely have been ranked behind Cecchini at the time because they were both perceived as low-floor prospects at that point in their careers. And Lavarnway was hardly considered a prospect at all. So, while someone could have made the argument for Cecchini at number 5 on that squad, they could also have made the argument for him at number 2. But even if we grant that the argument is made purely about ceiling, or being an "impact player" as he puts it, then it could be argued that he was only the fourth best prospect in Greenville this year (behind Owens, Barnes, and Swihart). In which case, the difference between the 2009 and 2012 system doesn't seem all that great. But of course, this argument ignores the rest of the system. As it also ignores what an above average system would look like. And it leaves ill-defined what, exactly, an "impact player" is. And, basically, it's just strange to form your argument as "I don't like the ceiling of this one player's bat AND somebody ranked him #5 in this system, THEREFORE this system does not have enough high-end talent."
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Nov 20, 2012 13:49:15 GMT -5
I didn't have much use for the Newman's article, however the video that accompanied the article was somewhat disturbing to me. Cecchini's player profile on this site says that he has excellent bat speed, but it certainly does not show up on the video, I might not even call it average bat speed on the video, and for those that have suggested Cecchini could eventually make WMB a first baseman or trade bait, I'd argue it's not very likely with that swing.
|
|
|
Post by sdiaz1 on Nov 20, 2012 13:50:53 GMT -5
I am an avid reader of fangraphs, and I am fan of their prospect team of Hulet, Cistulli, and Newman. I felt like Newman did a good job in his evaluation about Cecchinni and why prospect watchers of the Red Sox should keep their expectations in check when it comes to Garin. However I would agree that he waded unnecessarily into murky territory when he tried to expand his call for pessimism throughout the system.
First, in the real world of creating and running organizations, having three or four guys with huge ceilings is nice but not necessarily better than having 6 guys with good ceilings and lowers floors. On average a typical good ceiling - low floor prospect (Jackie Bradley) will produce much much more value over their career than a super talented-toolsy prospect in the low minors (Jorge Soler). Yes if all things fall right the Red Sox only get an occasional all-Star in center, while the Cubs may have the next Vladimir Guerrerro, but the odds are much higher in the Sox's favor.
Boston has a ton of guys who without too much luck, projection or development should be starting players in the MLB.
Second, I would argue that Boston does in fact have some really high upside guys who can truly be impact players (Read 5 or more WAR types). Xander, Barnes, De La Rosa (Newman agrees, but mentions that he is no longer a prosepect - which is technically true), Webster ( I disagree with Newman's fears here), Lin, Swihart, Owens, Callahan)
Third, he repeatedly used the 2006 crop as his benchmark. I did not follow the system too much back then, but I seem to remember that we offered both Lester and Papelbon for Reed Johnson (who yes, was a highly rated post prospect) and that no one really expected Pedoria to ever be much more than David Eckstein 2.0.
With all that said, he is an awesome writer, I typically agree with his evaluations (I think he is spot on with Cecchinni) and to question his validity is a ridiculous overstatement and reeks of homerism.
Edited: To make it clear that I felt like his pessimism on Cecchinni is valid, while his overall impression on the organization is inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Nov 20, 2012 16:31:32 GMT -5
but I seem to remember that we offered both Lester and Papelbon for Reed Johnson (who yes, was a highly rated post prospect) and that no one really expected Pedoria to ever be much more than David Eckstein 2.0. No, Dave Cameron (then of SS Mariner, I believe) suggested that trade and then decided to rip it apart because Reed was such a fantastic prospect; Papelbon was a Neighborgall redux I think he said. For reference: A year or so earlier, Lester was the requested "extra piece" in a Manny for ARod trade and the Sox turned it down. There are a lot of prospects that everyone thinks will be huge successes that never pan out for any # of reasons: see Andy Marte, BA's 9th best 2005 prospect. Or Delmon Young, a two time #1 prospect! There are also a lot of prospects that succeed despite the scouting reports on them: see Miguel Montero. Mike's right when he says that the Sox don't have a lot of front line talent, but that's not where they're usually strong: their system is usually ranked highly because they have fantastic depth and lots of high floor players.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 20, 2012 19:43:56 GMT -5
I was wondering if the piece wasn't written before the acquisition of Webster and De La Rosa, so I checked the posting date. It wasn't.
No doubt we can sometimes overestimate the team's minor league prospects, but I don't think the writer should have gotten sidetracked into generalizing the way he did.
Leaving off Bradley is a mistake I think. He had all of 40 plate appearances as a 21 year-old. His first full time minor league gig resulted in 575 PAs, a bit of a jump. Remember, this is a guy coming off a tendon injury to his wrist in 2011. After completely dominating A+, he still came in with an .800+ OPS in Portland. All of that was at 22.
That's just his hitting skills. From everything I've read on the site, he's an elite defender in centerfield right now. The age question is completely lost on me, I'll admit.
That's before we get to Webster. His absence from the discussion is the real mystery. I think he's the big prize in the Punto deal. And while I know that it can be difficult to project young pitchers, ignoring him had me discounting the impromptu take on the entire system. No idea why he worked himself into that.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Nov 20, 2012 20:12:25 GMT -5
He comes back around to address both Webster and Bradley in the notes below the article:
On Bradley:
On Webster, then back to a Bradley/Angel Pagan comparison:
Lot of other good replies in the notes, including props to soxprospects & Mellen....
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 20, 2012 20:42:59 GMT -5
I think most of the debate is with regards to the term "impact player," which I do not care to visit. It's like the old "elite" or "ace" debates-- we're all stupider for arguing about it.
I do kind of agree with Newman that after the top four (or top 5 if you count De La Rosa), there is a noticeable drop-off where you either have to wish on guys in the low minors with tools (Owens, Swihart), near-MLB-ready guys with serious warts (Brentz, Iglesias), or guys who put up great stats but aren't particularly age-advanced or projectable (Cecchini, Workman). I'm not informed enough to compare that against other organizations' depth charts, but there's unambiguously a drop-off there.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 20, 2012 20:51:16 GMT -5
He comes back around to address both Webster and Bradley in the notes below the article: On Bradley: On Webster, then back to a Bradley/Angel Pagan comparison: Lot of other good replies in the notes, including props to soxprospects & Mellen.... Thanks for pointing out those takes. I'm not sure what the definition of impact is, I guess. His claim is that the system is thin. There's a lot of wiggle room between an unspecified number of those undefined impact types and the also undefined systemic thinness. The lack of finishing kick for Webster is something Chris Mellen highlighted in his reports. Not surprising in someone just a few years removed from his days as a shortstop. Let me suggest that it's a lot easier to build up pitching stamina than it is to teach someone to throw a 95 mph sinker that's part of a 4 pitch mix. Whether that's enough to make Webster an "impact player", others can decide. It may be more than enough to pitch in the majors as a starter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2012 22:38:18 GMT -5
cecchini is a very good hitter. it would be nice if he could play ss though. if he can move to first though, i wonder if he can develop into a mark grace kind of guy.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 21, 2012 0:20:00 GMT -5
Good call - Grace is a pretty good perfect-world projection for Cecchini, I think. Quick hands, solid gap-to-gap power, excellent doubles hitter, smart baserunner. Because he was a first baseman, Grace was often miscast as a middle-of-the-order guy. In reality, he'd have been a perfect #2 hitter.
A couple of divergences though. First, Grace had very little platoon differential, while Cecchini's is extreme. Second, Grace was much slower than he looked (though, again, he was considered a good baserunner).
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Nov 22, 2012 20:04:53 GMT -5
I'm a genius! Cecchini doesn't has even near the speed Brian Roberts has. Pre-2012 Chase Headley is probably the optimistic projection.
|
|
|
Post by jbg3004 on Nov 23, 2012 22:30:14 GMT -5
If Garin turns into Mark Grace the Red Sox would be very happy. Grace led the 90's in hits. That is a great accomplishment.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jan 1, 2013 21:22:09 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2013 21:49:06 GMT -5
I'd stick with WMB at third because of his power upside and the sox need a middle of the order bat. Cecchini can move to first. Maybe he can develop into a Mark Grace kind of guy. Not much power for a first baseman, but knows how to hit and get on base a lot. Cecchini would also have average power and good speed.
I'd hang on to Cecchini because he can be a big part of the team in the future, whether it be at 1B or the outfield. (WBM at third) So I would rank him among the Red Sox untouchable prospects, with Bogaerts, Barnes, Bradley, De La Rosa, Webster, Brentz, Britton, Workman, and others.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 1, 2013 21:58:59 GMT -5
Interesting, but note that this was a fan post by "Mav22," not Sickels or anyone actually associated with his site. I'm not sure what "steal differential" is supposed to tell us. Any stat that measures 87 steals in 122 attempts to be equal to 58 steals in 64 attempts, to use numbers from that list, isn't one I'd use, ever, to make any point. A high "steal differential" seems to be a product of a speedy player attempting a lot of steals in order to practice that skill. Several of those players, for example, were below the 75% threshold at which stealing bases is a worthwhile enterprise - again, they're practicing that skill to prepare them to do so in the majors. Plus, having that kind of steal differential isn't a huge deal - Felix Sanchez and Jeremy Hazelbaker have had +40 or better the last couple of years for the Drive. Also, and probably most importantly, note what this list actually is: players who had a steal differential of +40 and played at least 1 season in the majors. By narrowing in this way, aren't you inherently narrowing the sample to a select group of players? How many players who stole bases like that in Low A, and weren't projected to do so in the majors, actually MADE IT to the majors? By comparing Cecchini to that group, you're assuming he's going to make the majors, which isn't a sure thing. So I guess if the point is that if Cecchini makes it to the majors, he'll have a relatively unique minor league stat line, then I agree with the post, but beyond that, I question its analytical value.
|
|
|
Post by jioh on Jan 1, 2013 22:43:32 GMT -5
This is a weird study for the reasons Chris has cited, but the central claim that Cecchini is a freak seems valid. To rephrase one of his questions, if it's so easy to steal bases in A-ball, why doesn't every fast outfielder have 50 sbs? I've seen Cecchini run, and I would call him "fleet". Maybe he also has a great first step--like another freak, Larry Bird. Those 50 sbs have to be credited to his athletic ability. To me it seems like Cecchini has a lot of potential, but also a lot of uncertainty, and his possible outcomes range from being a AAA 3b like Cole Liniak to being an excellent 3b or rf with power and patience and good D.
(edited in insert a missing word)
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jan 2, 2013 10:57:41 GMT -5
Also, and probably most importantly, note what this list actually is: players who had a steal differential of +40 and played at least 1 season in the majors. By narrowing in this way, aren't you inherently narrowing the sample to a select group of players? How many players who stole bases like that in Low A, and weren't projected to do so in the majors, actually MADE IT to the majors? By comparing Cecchini to that group, you're assuming he's going to make the majors, which isn't a sure thing. So I guess if the point is that if Cecchini makes it to the majors, he'll have a relatively unique minor league stat line, then I agree with the post, but beyond that, I question its analytical value. I think the point of the author was to counter against those who say that his high SB totals mean nothing with regards to his future success stealing bases in the MLB. In other words, he's saying that in the case he does make the majors, history suggests that he will have high SBs totals (or differential). At least that's the way I read that fanpost.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 2, 2013 11:18:48 GMT -5
It's not like it's terribly hard to steal bases in the majors, given good instincts and a little speed, between the pitchers who don't hold runners on and the catchers who can't throw.
Pedroia steals 20 a season on his tiny little legs despite not stealing at all in the minors.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 2, 2013 12:13:36 GMT -5
Pedroia steals 20 a season on his tiny little legs despite not stealing at all in the minors. Agreed. And Cecchini is faster than Pedroia, so it's not at all impossible to project Cecchini as a 25-30 stolen base guy, especially if Cecchini keeps getting on base at a .390+ clip. When we talk about Cecchini not having elite speed, it's in the context of those we think of as putting up 50+ steals: Ellsbury, Crawford, Reyes, etc. Saying that Cecchini isn't in a category with those guys in terms of his natural speed shouldn't be taken as an insult. He has a very good first step and is a very intelligent base runner. like another freak, Larry Bird. You know better than to violate the first commandment of Boston sports!
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jan 2, 2013 12:29:36 GMT -5
Agreed. And Cecchini is faster than Pedroia, so it's not at all impossible to project Cecchini as a 25-30 stolen base guy, especially if Cecchini keeps getting on base at a .390+ clip. When we talk about Cecchini not having elite speed, it's in the context of those we think of as putting up 50+ steals: Ellsbury, Crawford, Reyes, etc. Saying that Cecchini isn't in a category with those guys in terms of his natural speed shouldn't be taken as an insult. He has a very good first step and is a very intelligent base runner. You're probably right with your projection of 25-30 and I'll take that considering the highest SB totals for 3B the last three years has been 19, 18, and 21. So he is "freakish" in a sense.
|
|
|