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 jimed14 on Oct 29, 2015 15:14:05 GMT -5
My only really untouchable are Mookie and Xander. I'm fine trading any prospects its a matter of the value ei not just for anyone. Moncada is a different matter since the team made a 60m + commitment to him so kind of hard to see them trade him. I want to include Espinoza as an untouchable but he is so young and is a pitcher, too much risk for me to say that he is untouchable. Espinoza should be untouchable, because of his upside. Guys of his age and build who have low-effort deliveries with great mechanics often add 2-3 mph. No one is projecting him to add 2-3 mph, or even considering it much, because there's simply no such thing as a starter who sits at 99 and touches 102 and 103. It seems absurd. But it's actually within the realm of possibility for Neo. We saw in this post-season that even guys as good as Kershaw and Arrieta are nothing like sure bets to win their starts. But if you look at Pedro in the post-season in '99 -- 17 shutout innings with a 1.55 FIP and a .152 BABIP with no XBH, including 13 IP with a 1.28 FIP and .095 BABIP after he got badly hurt, a nd it becomes reasonable to think that there is a level beyond Kershaw, Arrieta, Greinke, etc., where an expectation of 0 or 1 ER allowed is reasonable, and it becomes tangibly and truly less likely that you lose any post-season series if that guy starts two games. It's the glory of baseball that no one guy, not even a Trout or Kershaw, can have the impact that a Tom Brady or Bill Russell has on his team. But when you get into inner-circle HOF pitchers at the top of their game, you start to edge into that territory. Neo has that upside. When you factor in how good his mean projection is, it should make him untouchable. Wow, I thought I was bullish on Espinoza.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,669
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 29, 2015 16:15:51 GMT -5
Espinoza should be untouchable, because of his upside. Guys of his age and build who have low-effort deliveries with great mechanics often add 2-3 mph. No one is projecting him to add 2-3 mph, or even considering it much, because there's simply no such thing as a starter who sits at 99 and touches 102 and 103. It seems absurd. But it's actually within the realm of possibility for Neo. We saw in this post-season that even guys as good as Kershaw and Arrieta are nothing like sure bets to win their starts. But if you look at Pedro in the post-season in '99 -- 17 shutout innings with a 1.55 FIP and a .152 BABIP with no XBH, including 13 IP with a 1.28 FIP and .095 BABIP after he got badly hurt, a nd it becomes reasonable to think that there is a level beyond Kershaw, Arrieta, Greinke, etc., where an expectation of 0 or 1 ER allowed is reasonable, and it becomes tangibly and truly less likely that you lose any post-season series if that guy starts two games. It's the glory of baseball that no one guy, not even a Trout or Kershaw, can have the impact that a Tom Brady or Bill Russell has on his team. But when you get into inner-circle HOF pitchers at the top of their game, you start to edge into that territory. Neo has that upside. When you factor in how good his mean projection is, it should make him untouchable. Wow, I thought I was bullish on Espinoza. I'd say arms like Espinoza don't come around the Sox too often. There was Clemens. Andy Yount was supposed to have one of those arms if not for a career ending injury. The Sox got Pedro in his prime. Talent like Espinoza just doesn't come around often. He's a guy the Sox have to hang onto and see what develops.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 29, 2015 19:15:32 GMT -5
I know he is young, but the reason I am less enthusiastic about Margot than many is that his hitting has not been all that exceptional. He doesn't have much power. His slash line for four seasons in the minors is ,282/.350/,419/.774. That is good but not great, not elite level.
It has been my observation over many years that most elite major league hitters also were elite hitters in the minors. There certainly are some exceptions, and there are many examples of elite hitters in the minors who don't make it the majors. But in general, really good hitters hit at all levels.
Margot does hit the ball more than most but not hard enough, at least not yet. I don't doubt he will be a major league player but I am not sold on him being a star. Not yet. I certainly am open to the idea.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,669
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 29, 2015 19:47:38 GMT -5
I know he is young, but the reason I am less enthusiastic about Margot than many is that his hitting has not been all that exceptional. He doesn't have much power. His slash line for four seasons in the minors is ,282/.350/,419/.774. That is good but not great, not elite level. It has been my observation over many years that most elite major league hitters also were elite hitters in the minors. There certainly are some exceptions, and there are many examples of elite hitters in the minors who don't make it the majors. But in general, really good hitters hit at all levels. Margot does hit the ball more than most but not hard enough, at least not yet. I don't doubt he will be a major league player but I am not sold on him being a star. Not yet. I certainly am open to the idea. To be fair, though, he is younger than his competition and if he were playing more age appropriate, his numbers would mostly likely be better. He's definitely got room to grow.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 29, 2015 19:57:46 GMT -5
I know he is young, but the reason I am less enthusiastic about Margot than many is that his hitting has not been all that exceptional. He doesn't have much power. His slash line for four seasons in the minors is ,282/.350/,419/.774. That is good but not great, not elite level. It has been my observation over many years that most elite major league hitters also were elite hitters in the minors. There certainly are some exceptions, and there are many examples of elite hitters in the minors who don't make it the majors. But in general, really good hitters hit at all levels. Margot does hit the ball more than most but not hard enough, at least not yet. I don't doubt he will be a major league player but I am not sold on him being a star. Not yet. I certainly am open to the idea. Well, that's sometimes true. But there are a lot of exceptions, particularly when players are very age-advanced for their leagues and lean/wiry. Some players with similar to-date minor league performances include Andrew McCutchen, Hanley Ramirez, and Carl Crawford. www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=9847&position=OFm.bbref.com/m?p=XXminorsXXplayer.cgiQQid=ramire001han&t=all_battingm.bbref.com/m?p=XXminorsXXplayer.cgiQQid=crawfo001car&t=all_battingI'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few more. The issue with players of that sort is that their scouting combined with "adequate" performance gets them promoted quickly. They're almost always at the steep edge of the learning curve, where game power and BB% tend to be "artificially" low, at least relative to their ceilings. And it's because they're always facing relatively advanced pitching. Although he was drafted out of college, Nomar had similar results his first two minor league seasons in high A/AA. m.bbref.com/m?p=XXminorsXXplayer.cgiQQid=garcia006ant&t=all_battingI like Margot's bat-to-ball skills and I'm not so concerned about his HR power. The scouting reports seem to settle on average (15-18), and he certainly has the bat speed and contact skills to hit, say, .300/.350/.500 in his better seasons. When you combine his minor league stats, you're including his half-season at Lowell when he showed almost no power. His ISO has risen since then. Plus, he's an excellent baserunner and defensive CF, with a good (not Ellsbury/Crawford noodle or JBJ cannon) arm. Given how age-advanced he's been, I think it's fair to say his OBP and SLG will probably settle a but higher in MLB, particularly in his prime. He'll play basically all of 2016 at age 21, probably in AAA with a possible MLB cameo. And I'd be surprised if he wasn't up for good at 22. We shouldn't be spoiled by Betts and Bogaerts...a debut at 21 and a (near) full season at 22 in MLB is very impressive.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 30, 2015 8:27:36 GMT -5
It will be interesting this offseason. The world knows the best way to build a successful franchise to try & stay homegrown & keep your best prospects. I think the RS can trade for a solid #2 & not decimate the farm. The bullpen is the key as there are really no dominate hard throwing arms available on the FA market. The only way to obtain one of them (Chapman or Kimbrel) is to give up more prospects (in addition to the 1 or 2 it will take to get a starter along with Owens or Miley).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 30, 2015 8:33:39 GMT -5
It's worth noting that nobody is projecting Manuel Margot to be an "elite" hitter. Large parts of his value come from his defense and baserunning, and those are things that are hard to appreciate if you're not seeing a guy in games the way it is when a guy is putting up great numbers at the plate. As for his power, looking at his career slash is a bit misleading. He hit for next to no power in Lowell - a single home run, and that was inside-the-park - but has grown into some power the last two years. ISOp level-by-level DSL (2012): .138 (tied mostly to his 7 triples - like we always say, it's a weird league and you should basically ignore the stats there) SSA (2013): .081 A (2014): .163 A+ (2014-15): .156 (broken down by year, .220 in a 16-game sample last year, .138 this year) AA (2015): .148 He's never going to be a masher, but 10-15 at his peak isn't crazy. For context, his .144 on the year in 2015 ranked in the top quarter of the system: www.soxprospects.com/stats/hitting.php?split=0&page=1&sortby=ISOP&team=0&year=2015&type=3&min=100
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 30, 2015 8:56:31 GMT -5
It's worth noting that nobody is projecting Manuel Margot to be an "elite" hitter. Large parts of his value come from his defense and baserunning, and those are things that are hard to appreciate if you're not seeing a guy in games the way it is when a guy is putting up great numbers at the plate. As for his power, looking at his career slash is a bit misleading. He hit for next to no power in Lowell - a single home run, and that was inside-the-park - but has grown into some power the last two years. ISOp level-by-level DSL (2012): .138 (tied mostly to his 7 triples - like we always say, it's a weird league and you should basically ignore the stats there) SSA (2013): .081 A (2014): .163 A+ (2014-15): .156 (broken down by year, .220 in a 16-game sample last year, .138 this year) AA (2015): .148 He's never going to be a masher, but 10-15 at his peak isn't crazy. For context, his .144 on the year in 2015 ranked in the top quarter of the system: www.soxprospects.com/stats/hitting.php?split=0&page=1&sortby=ISOP&team=0&year=2015&type=3&min=100It is going to be a shame to see him leave as he could be another Betts in a year...imagine 2 Mookies is the same OF, batting 1st & 2nd. It seems with all the threads that he is the one to exit due to position redundancy. AB will be good, but has more ground to cover as far as levels. A lot can happen between Greenville & Boston, Not as much from Portland to Boston. But to obtain what we NEED, someone has to go
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 30, 2015 9:55:04 GMT -5
Margot and Betts are VERY different players at the plate, for what it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Oct 30, 2015 10:07:39 GMT -5
Margot and Betts are VERY different players at the plate, for what it's worth. Yeah, I see Margot as having a lot more JBJ in his offensive game than Betts.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,669
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 30, 2015 10:11:04 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't see Betts and Margot as interchangeable. The real question to me is who are the Sox better off with in CF over the next five years? JBJ or Margot?
This year and probably next year, obviously Bradley, but after that?
This of course, assumes Betts to be in RF. Because there's no way I take JBJ or Margot over Betts - ever.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 30, 2015 11:01:27 GMT -5
I was thinking more that Betts, anecdotally at least, showed outstanding command of the strike zone in the upper levels of the minors - he swung at strikes only and he connected on those strikes. He didn't post elite walk numbers, but under this theory, because he was aggressive within the zone, he didn't walk as much as you'd think, and his OBP was still well above .400 because his contact skills within the zone led to sustainably high averages. Margot, on the other hand, is on the other end of the spectrum in that he's extremely aggressive, but he does not strike out a ton because he'll make contact on those pitches outside of the zone that he swings at.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 30, 2015 11:26:40 GMT -5
Margot and Betts are VERY different players at the plate, for what it's worth. Yeah, I see Margot as having a lot more JBJ in his offensive game than Betts. Except that JBJ strikes out about 3 times as much as Margot.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 30, 2015 11:29:33 GMT -5
I was thinking more that Betts, anecdotally at least, showed outstanding command of the strike zone in the upper levels of the minors - he swung at strikes only and he connected on those strikes. He didn't post elite walk numbers, but under this theory, because he was aggressive within the zone, he didn't walk as much as you'd think, and his OBP was still well above .400 because his contact skills within the zone led to sustainably high averages. Margot, on the other hand, is on the other end of the spectrum in that he's extremely aggressive, but he does not strike out a ton because he'll make contact on those pitches outside of the zone that he swings at. Maybe Margot can learn to walk as much as Ellsbury, which wouldn't take a ton of work. I'd see them as similar hitters then, with the usual caveats about prospects.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Oct 30, 2015 11:43:00 GMT -5
Yeah, I see Margot as having a lot more JBJ in his offensive game than Betts. Except that JBJ strikes out about 3 times as much as Margot. 19% vs. 12% to be exact. JBJ in 2012Salem - 40K in 234 AB Portland - 49K in 229 AB TOTAL - 89 K in 463 AB (19%)Margot in 2015Salem - 15K in 181 AB Portland - 36K in 258 AB TOTAL - 51 K in 439 AB (12%)
No two players are exactly alike, but my vision of Margot as a player is still a lot closer to the skill set of JBJ than Betts.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 30, 2015 11:51:00 GMT -5
Except that JBJ strikes out about 3 times as much as Margot. 19% vs. 12% to be exact. JBJ in 2012Salem - 40K in 234 AB Portland - 49K in 229 AB TOTAL - 89 K in 463 AB (19%)Margot in 2015Salem - 15K in 181 AB Portland - 36K in 258 AB TOTAL - 51 K in 439 AB (12%)
No two players are exactly alike, but my vision of Margot as a player is still a lot closer to the skill set of JBJ than Betts. Mookie struck out 10.3% in 2013 and 10.8% in 2014 in the minors. Margot is a lot closer to that than to JBJ if we're only talking strikeouts. This is going to get silly if we start talking stats and start projecting. I don't see Margot more than doubling his k-rate for any particular reason other than he winds up a bust. May as well just talk about what our crystal balls say.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Oct 30, 2015 12:04:46 GMT -5
Anyone knows where to find minor league %GB rates for pitchers and LHP/RHP splits for hitters? Sorry to bring it up in this thread, but I wanted to check whether Owens low %GB rate in the majors this season was consistent with his minor league numbers. That would be a factor in deciding if I'm comfortable with him being included in a package for a SP.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 30, 2015 12:09:32 GMT -5
Anyone knows where to find minor league %GB rates for pitchers and LHP/RHP splits for hitters? Sorry to bring it up in this thread, but I wanted to check whether Owens low %GB rate in the majors this season was consistent with his minor league numbers. That would be a factor in deciding if I'm comfortable with him being included in a package for a SP. minorleaguecentral.com/player?pid=596064That website hasn't been updated since June, which makes me sad. You can also check on this site.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 30, 2015 12:09:38 GMT -5
Bradley also walked more than twice as much as Margot at the same levels (15.2% in his Portland/Salem year vs. 6.7% this year for Margot). Doesn't seem like a great comp to me offensively in that respect. Bradley doesn't possess the bat speed Margot generates either, and is nowhere near as aggressive. (Again, finding good comps are hard, which is why, as we discussed on the podcast recently, I hate doing them - it's a lot easier to poke holes in a comp than to find a good one.) By the way, the strikeout % numbers are 10.6% for Margot and 15.6 % for Bradley if you're using PA, which would make more sense, imo. These #'s are always available on our stat page: www.soxprospects.com/stats/hitting.php?split=0&page=1&sortby=RC&team=0&year=2012&type=3&min=150
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 30, 2015 12:14:45 GMT -5
19% vs. 12% to be exact. JBJ in 2012Salem - 40K in 234 AB Portland - 49K in 229 AB TOTAL - 89 K in 463 AB (19%)Margot in 2015Salem - 15K in 181 AB Portland - 36K in 258 AB TOTAL - 51 K in 439 AB (12%)
No two players are exactly alike, but my vision of Margot as a player is still a lot closer to the skill set of JBJ than Betts. Mookie struck out 10.3% in 2013 and 10.8% in 2014 in the minors. Margot is a lot closer to that than to JBJ if we're only talking strikeouts. This is going to get silly if we start talking stats and start projecting. I don't see Margot more than doubling his k-rate for any particular reason other than he winds up a bust. May as well just talk about what our crystal balls say. By saying "another Mookie" obviously I didn't mean exactly like him....When the MFY were doing well in the 1st half, Ellsbury & Gardner were wreaking havoc by just playing to their normal expected talent level, which is pretty good, & the team succeeded (helps to have a shutdown BP). DP, I don't believe we can count on him for 140 games anymore.....his injuries used to be freak things, now a hammy. I suppose AB could fill #2 hole in a year or so as well if EVERYTHING goes well for 3 more levels.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,986
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 30, 2015 13:21:59 GMT -5
I hereby predict that Benintendi will turn out to be pseudo-untouchable, that he will be described as off the table and then finally DD will say 'Ok, dagnabbit," and give in and include him in a trade for a good starter, then not smile until no one can see him. (He might be right or wrong to smile.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 30, 2015 16:58:53 GMT -5
One reason to hang onto both Margot and Benintendi for the time being: as good as some of us think JBJ is going to be, you may still be better off eventually dealing him to make room for both M & B, alongside Betts.
There's some evidence that Margot's low-K approach plays better in the post-season (and against elite pitching in general) than Bradley's high-K approach. Two years from now, Bradley's trade value plus Margot's value for us over six years, adjusted for the post-season effect, may well exceed Bradley's remaining three years of value for us plus Margot's trade value. It might still represent a bit of a downgrade in CF, but the idea is that the downgrade would be significantly lessened in the post-season.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,986
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 30, 2015 19:16:35 GMT -5
Except that JBJ strikes out about 3 times as much as Margot. 19% vs. 12% to be exact. JBJ in 2012Salem - 40K in 234 AB Portland - 49K in 229 AB TOTAL - 89 K in 463 AB (19%)Margot in 2015Salem - 15K in 181 AB Portland - 36K in 258 AB TOTAL - 51 K in 439 AB (12%)
No two players are exactly alike, but my vision of Margot as a player is still a lot closer to the skill set of JBJ than Betts. The claim was "strikes out" more, present tense, not past tense "struck out" more in 2012. Every year after 2012, JBJ has struck out more than in 2012, including 29% in 2013, 26-28% in 2014, and in his pretty good time in Boston in 2015, 27%. So, not three times as much, merely 2.3 or 2.5 times as much. Even with Margot being much more age- advanced, and having one little terrible injury-plagued stretch in 2015 (he only struck out twice in a game, and 4 times in 3 games, right before going on the DL).
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,673
|
Post by gerry on Oct 31, 2015 2:23:31 GMT -5
The WS is reminding me of the value of high OBP players who move the line. This in large part defined the successful offense of the Sox over the past couple of months. Papi and Hanley, besides their power, are As successfull at this as Pedey.
It looks like XB, Mookie, Shaw, Swihart may fit this criterion, as do Margot and Beni. With double digit HR power already coming from 1-9 in this lineup, with speed from 6 positions, I think we can see more of Aug and Sept from this team, no matter how it is tweaked. In this light I am having serious second thoughts about trading Margot or Beni. Some good arguments to hang onto them have been made upthread. I hope this info gets into the mainstream press in time for a good discussion before the WS ends.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 31, 2015 7:34:07 GMT -5
I hereby predict that Benintendi will turn out to be pseudo-untouchable, that he will be described as off the table and then finally DD will say 'Ok, dagnabbit," and give in and include him in a trade for a good starter, then not smile until no one can see him. (He might be right or wrong to smile.) I hope that does not come to pass but that "dagnabbit" sounded so perfect it caused me to worry . It also reminded me of Andy Taylor talking to Barney.
|
|
|