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.
Baseball America top 10 prospects
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 18, 2015 9:10:22 GMT -5
Marrero pretty consistently had a strikeout rate of 16-19% in the minors and it skyrocketed to 33.9% in the majors this year. It's more likely than not that he can make adjustments to bring that strikeout rate down - Steamer, for instance, projects him for a 22.2% K-rate and a resulting .247/.299/.337 line. IF his glove is as good as advertised, that makes him a decent enough second-division starter at shortstop. But it also makes him a quality depth piece for the Red Sox. He's not going anywhere. He's the only guy who could realistically be an every day SS if something happened to Xander. And he lets them use Holt as a full time outfielder if necessary for whatever reason.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
|
Post by nomar on Dec 18, 2015 9:13:21 GMT -5
It doesn't make sense to trade Marrero until he established himself as a utility guy or capable starter at SS (unless for whatever reason a team overvalues him).
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 18, 2015 9:32:08 GMT -5
Marrero is 25 with a declining obpct at every level. Top 10 prospect? Not a chance. At best, utility IF.. Ranking are not a ceiling list. Cost controlled, major league ready anything has present value. Rankings don't have a set formula. The top groups will be rather similar but after you get to a certain spot then it's really personal preference and can vary greatly. For example, the guy no one is talking about in the Kimbrel trade, Asuaje, was not ranked very high on this site. However, the Padres really like him and enough that they think he can win a job in the majors this year. It's not unreasonable to think that the Padres may have preferred him to Marrero if given the choice between the two (I don't think they were).
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 18, 2015 9:40:09 GMT -5
Marrero is 25 with a declining obpct at every level. Top 10 prospect? Not a chance. At best, utility IF.. With his glove once he acclimates, there's a good chance he's still worth as much as a solid reliever given his control. Still a decent asset for us. I agree with this if you just use WAR as a barometer. The problem is that WAR gets a lot of value or all the value in this case from defense. There are two issues I have with this. But I'll focus on the most overlooked in my opinion. Defense from a poor offensive performer is probably the most fungible asset in baseball. It's not incredibly difficult to find some one who can play really good defense at a given position and not be able to hit. Even if a guy was a great defender and he brings a surplus WAR because of it, it's not hard to find a guy who's just a notch below that, if not equal to it, who can't hit as well. For this reason I "devalue" guys who's "value" is tied mostly to defense as it's easier to replace. Supply and demand.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 18, 2015 9:41:56 GMT -5
Marrero is 25 with a declining obpct at every level. Top 10 prospect? Not a chance. At best, utility IF.. I agree he'd not a top 10 prospect in this system, but he might be able to start for some team, just not the Red Sox or any big market team. Well, as I always ask in response to any "this guy shouldn't be ranked that high!" comment, what player(s) would you rank higher? As great as the top 7 is, there is an enormous drop-off from Travis to Marrero. I get the sentiment of "what the hell is Marrero doing at 8?" because that's basically what I thought after the trade, but the fact is that an above-average-to-plus MLB defender at short has a pretty high floor. Compare that with, say, the next five guys in the rankings here at the site, who could all fail to get past Double-A and have significant development ahead of them. Meanwhile, while Marrero's ceiling would probably be starting on a second-division team for a few years, his floor is probably an MLB bench infielder, given his defense at second, third, and short. It hurts that he can't run and I doubt he'll hit, but in an environment where AL shortstops hit .264/.311/.380 and only 17 shortstops in MLB were at at least 90 wRC+, Marrero isn't going to need to hit a ton to justify a roster spot (if not a starting job). I'm assuming Alex will agree with what we've said on the podcast previously: The system is about as good as it's ever been from 1-7 (1-9 before the trade), but especially after the trade, it's really thin relative to past years from about 8-25, where you'd feel a lot more comfortable if everyone were ranked about 4-5 spots lower than they currently are, if not more.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 18, 2015 10:04:15 GMT -5
Defense from a poor offensive performer is probably the most fungible asset in baseball. It's not incredibly difficult to find some one who can play really good defense at a given position and not be able to hit. Well, sure, if you think "can hit?" is a binary variable, you could just grab your best shortstop from low A ball and he might hit .050 in the majors and you can pretend that's just as good as a guy hitting .220 because they both "can't hit", but in fact it's not.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 18, 2015 10:06:10 GMT -5
This is the problem with just using prospect eligible players for these analysis. Imagine, if Brian Johnson didn't get hurt? The system would be so much worse!!! But in reality the system is worse because he's still a prospect so it's backwards to look at it the way we do.
Look at all the guys that were graduated the last two years. It's ridiculous that that many quality players graduated and that we are still left with the talent we have. The gap in the upper minors really exists because guys advanced more quickly than expected. For example, Swithart probably shouldn't have graduated last year, if Vasquez was healthy. He would have gotten time in the majors but a decent chance he wouldn't have received enough to graduated (yes there is good reason to believe he may have but let's skip that argument because it also reasonable he wouldn't have and I'm illustrating a point). If Swithart, with major league experience, in AAA, was still on this list then we'd all feel better about the system too. However, after the year he just had with the second half improvements, the overall situation is much better in regards to him.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 18, 2015 10:08:14 GMT -5
I forgot my point.. Sorry. It's much better off to look at both the minor leagues and young cost controlled players. The Red Sox still have one of the best minor league systems and it probably fits perfectly with their minor league system. Longterm. Having this next wave reach 2-3 years from now is very important for staggering contracts
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 18, 2015 10:14:09 GMT -5
Defense from a poor offensive performer is probably the most fungible asset in baseball. It's not incredibly difficult to find some one who can play really good defense at a given position and not be able to hit. Even if a guy was a great defender and he brings a surplus WAR because of it, it's not hard to find a guy who's just a notch below that, if not equal to it, who can't hit as well. For this reason I "devalue" guys who's "value" is tied mostly to defense as it's easier to replace. Supply and demand. There's a tendency to lump together everyone who can't hit. But really, there are differences between bad hitters, and some bad hitters are better than others. There's a meaningful difference between, say, Pete Kozma's career 58 wRC+ and Brendan Ryan's career 69 wRC+ and Clint Barmes' career 71 wRC+ and Alcides Escobar's career 74 wRC+ and Andrelton Simmons' career 84 wRC+. A plus defensive shortstop who hits at the top end of that spectrum can be a starter, whereas if you hit at the bottom end of the spectrum, you're a bench player or out of the league. Marrero (who Steamer projects to hit for a 71 wRC+) has a chance to be towards the upper middle half of that spectrum, and there is a real, meaningful difference between he and the Kozmas of the world.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Dec 18, 2015 10:16:07 GMT -5
Was just going to make the point that the fact that the Sox have so many young players at the ML level has "weakened" the farm but also gives them time to restock and hopefully not be too concerned with the gap which is only a couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 18, 2015 10:23:31 GMT -5
Defense from a poor offensive performer is probably the most fungible asset in baseball. It's not incredibly difficult to find some one who can play really good defense at a given position and not be able to hit. Well, sure, if you think "can hit?" is a binary variable, you could just grab your best shortstop from low A ball and he might hit .050 in the majors and you can pretend that's just as good as a guy hitting .220 because they both "can't hit", but in fact it's not. Yea valid point if you want to take it to the extreme. But I did not mean it to that extreme. Plenty of guys could hit .220 and play very good defense. It's a lot more readily available than we make it out to be. The reason we dont see more of that is because teams don't want that. They will take chances on lessor defenders who they think might hit vs a better defender they know won't hit better than say .220. Defense is a much easier skill than hitting.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 18, 2015 10:27:03 GMT -5
Was just going to make the point that the fact that the Sox have so many young players at the ML level has "weakened" the farm but also gives them time to restock and hopefully not be too concerned with the gap which is only a couple of years. Right. Consider that 8 graduated prospects who are still under 25 would still fit before Marrero without question, and maybe even Barnes as a ninth. Makes the depth issue a lot less of a thing to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 18, 2015 10:34:42 GMT -5
Well, sure, if you think "can hit?" is a binary variable, you could just grab your best shortstop from low A ball and he might hit .050 in the majors and you can pretend that's just as good as a guy hitting .220 because they both "can't hit", but in fact it's not. Yea valid point if you want to take it to the extreme. But I did not mean it to that extreme. Plenty of guys could hit .220 and play very good defense. It's a lot more readily available than we make it out to be. The reason we dont see more of that is because teams don't want that. They will take chances on lessor defenders who they think might hit vs a better defender they know won't hit better than say .220. Defense is a much easier skill than hitting. Do you have any actual examples of this happening? I don't think this is necessarily true as a general proposition. I think a lot of it has to do with jmei's point of is it a 50 wRC+ great defender or an 80 wRC+ great defender, as well as who the replacement is. Only example I can think of is the Pirates replacing Jordy Mercer, who is a 68 wRC+ for 2015 and a very good defender, with Kang, who hit 130 wRC+ and was a slightly above league average defender. So yeah, of course you'd do that. The team is going to always take the guy who is more valuable overall. I guess it's all relative, but if Marrero could put up the .250/.310/.350-ish line he did in Pawtucket this year in the majors, he'd be a below-average MLB starter at SS (that's below-avg starter, not below-avg shortstop). If he hits slightly below that, he's got a bench job. I think that's what'll happen. Maybe something like .230/.300/.310 once he settled in.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 18, 2015 10:39:50 GMT -5
Plenty of guys could hit .220 and play very good defense. To me this is very obviously wrong but I don't really see the point in discussing it further.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 18, 2015 10:45:39 GMT -5
Well, sure, if you think "can hit?" is a binary variable, you could just grab your best shortstop from low A ball and he might hit .050 in the majors and you can pretend that's just as good as a guy hitting .220 because they both "can't hit", but in fact it's not. Yea valid point if you want to take it to the extreme. But I did not mean it to that extreme. Plenty of guys could hit .220 and play very good defense. It's a lot more readily available than we make it out to be. The reason we dont see more of that is because teams don't want that. They will take chances on lessor defenders who they think might hit vs a better defender they know won't hit better than say .220. Defense is a much easier skill than hitting. I understand the point you're making - but you need to consider 'position'. If you're talking about a LFer, then sure. But the higher you go up the defensive spectrum, the less true this becomes. It's also much less true today than it was 10-20 years ago. Marcus Thames is CRUSHING the ball overseas and has a career 104 wRC+/.339 wOBA/.794 OPS in MLB - but nobody is rushing to pay him huge money, primarily because of his defense. And certainly nobody is looking to sign him as a SS.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 18, 2015 10:54:49 GMT -5
Was just going to make the point that the fact that the Sox have so many young players at the ML level has "weakened" the farm but also gives them time to restock and hopefully not be too concerned with the gap which is only a couple of years. Right. Consider that 8 graduated prospects who are still under 25 would still fit before Marrero without question, and maybe even Barnes as a ninth. Makes the depth issue a lot less of a thing to worry about. The main 'problem' is that guys like Marrero, Barnes, Owens, etc. are incredibly valuable as major league depth and thus are probably worth more to the Red Sox than to any other team. They can't trade them until they're out of options and then they're in limbo as graduated and unproven major leaguers. The graduated prospects with options are so much better as depth than non-40 man minor league players, but teams don't generally trade for those guys since they're unproven. So they have lots of great depth, but not a lot of trade assets that they could give up without replacing them. They could easily trade one of Owens, Johnson or Elias though. That is overkill.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 18, 2015 10:54:51 GMT -5
Yea valid point if you want to take it to the extreme. But I did not mean it to that extreme. Plenty of guys could hit .220 and play very good defense. It's a lot more readily available than we make it out to be. The reason we dont see more of that is because teams don't want that. They will take chances on lessor defenders who they think might hit vs a better defender they know won't hit better than say .220. Defense is a much easier skill than hitting. Do you have any actual examples of this happening? I don't think this is necessarily true as a general proposition. I think a lot of it has to do with jmei's point of is it a 50 wRC+ great defender or an 80 wRC+ great defender, as well as who the replacement is. Only example I can think of is the Pirates replacing Jordy Mercer, who is a 68 wRC+ for 2015 and a very good defender, with Kang, who hit 130 wRC+ and was a slightly above league average defender. So yeah, of course you'd do that. The team is going to always take the guy who is more valuable overall. I guess it's all relative, but if Marrero could put up the .250/.310/.350-ish line he did in Pawtucket this year in the majors, he'd be a below-average MLB starter at SS (that's below-avg starter, not below-avg shortstop). If he hits slightly below that, he's got a bench job. I think that's what'll happen. Maybe something like .230/.300/.310 once he settled in. No it's my opinion that in would be easier to replace if teams wanted to. I don't think it's really going out on a limb to say that defense is easier to replace than offense. I'm hopeful, we can all agree on that. There's anecdotal evidence, in that teams play guys who are basically train wrecks in the field but can hit really well, but very rarely do the opposite. I'll use Jmei's example of Kozima. His glove was great, but his bat was terrible. If Marrero has a WC+ of 71 that will make him more valuable than Kozima but the drop off to Kozima from Marrero at that isn't so great that it makes Marrero all that valuable in my opinion. You can find a Kozima pretty easily to fill in without suffering that greatly. Not to mention the number of great glove questionable bat prospects out there is vast. Sure the ones who fugue out the bat become valuable but who's going to do that is anyone's guess.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 18, 2015 11:01:51 GMT -5
Do you have any actual examples of this happening? I don't think this is necessarily true as a general proposition. I think a lot of it has to do with jmei's point of is it a 50 wRC+ great defender or an 80 wRC+ great defender, as well as who the replacement is. Only example I can think of is the Pirates replacing Jordy Mercer, who is a 68 wRC+ for 2015 and a very good defender, with Kang, who hit 130 wRC+ and was a slightly above league average defender. So yeah, of course you'd do that. The team is going to always take the guy who is more valuable overall. I guess it's all relative, but if Marrero could put up the .250/.310/.350-ish line he did in Pawtucket this year in the majors, he'd be a below-average MLB starter at SS (that's below-avg starter, not below-avg shortstop). If he hits slightly below that, he's got a bench job. I think that's what'll happen. Maybe something like .230/.300/.310 once he settled in. No it's my opinion that in would be easier to replace if teams wanted to. I don't think it's really going out on a limb to say that defense is easier to replace than offense. I'm hopeful, we can all agree on that. There's anecdotal evidence, in that teams play guys who are basically train wrecks in the field but can hit really well, but very rarely do the opposite. I'll use Jmei's example of Kozima. His glove was great, but his bat was terrible. If Marrero has a WC+ of 71 that will make him more valuable than Kozima but the drop off to Kozima from Marrero at that isn't so great that it makes Marrero all that valuable in my opinion. You can find a Kozima pretty easily to fill in without suffering that greatly. Not to mention the number of great glove questionable bat prospects out there is vast. Sure the ones who fugue out the bat become valuable but who's going to do that is anyone's guess. Marrero is quite valuable to the Red Sox while he has options. The Yankees signed Kozma to a minor league contract probably including an opt-out after ST. So if the Yankees want to keep him, they would have to dedicate a roster spot to him and would be unable to send him down without waiving him. That's nowhere near as convenient as Marrero with his options. When he's out of options, I think he'll be a very decent utility infielder at worst.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 18, 2015 11:07:11 GMT -5
Do you have any actual examples of this happening? I don't think this is necessarily true as a general proposition. I think a lot of it has to do with jmei's point of is it a 50 wRC+ great defender or an 80 wRC+ great defender, as well as who the replacement is. Only example I can think of is the Pirates replacing Jordy Mercer, who is a 68 wRC+ for 2015 and a very good defender, with Kang, who hit 130 wRC+ and was a slightly above league average defender. So yeah, of course you'd do that. The team is going to always take the guy who is more valuable overall. I guess it's all relative, but if Marrero could put up the .250/.310/.350-ish line he did in Pawtucket this year in the majors, he'd be a below-average MLB starter at SS (that's below-avg starter, not below-avg shortstop). If he hits slightly below that, he's got a bench job. I think that's what'll happen. Maybe something like .230/.300/.310 once he settled in. No it's my opinion that in would be easier to replace if teams wanted to. I don't think it's really going out on a limb to say that defense is easier to replace than offense. I'm hopeful, we can all agree on that. There's anecdotal evidence, in that teams play guys who are basically train wrecks in the field but can hit really well, but very rarely do the opposite. I'll use Jmei's example of Kozima. His glove was great, but his bat was terrible. If Marrero has a WC+ of 71 that will make him more valuable than Kozima but the drop off to Kozima from Marrero at that isn't so great that it makes Marrero all that valuable in my opinion. You can find a Kozima pretty easily to fill in without suffering that greatly. Not to mention the number of great glove questionable bat prospects out there is vast. Sure the ones who fugue out the bat become valuable but who's going to do that is anyone's guess. I'm sorry, but I'm with mgoetze in that I don't agree with your general assumptions or premises, unless you can actually point to some evidence of that being the case. Assuming your premise is something to the effect of, admittedly a bit oversimplified, that it's easier to find a player with a 45 bat and a 65 glove than it is to find a guy with a 45 glove and a 65 bat (both cases that glove being at shortstop), I disagree with the premise being obviously apparent or generally accepted.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 18, 2015 11:11:44 GMT -5
Fair enough, it's not that important to discuss further anyways. I'm a little surprised the people think it's just as difficult to be a good defender as it is a good hitter considering hitting a baseball is widely accepted as one of the most difficult things in sports to do. But we can agree to disagree and move on... There are more interesting things to discuss anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 18, 2015 11:23:09 GMT -5
Fair enough, it's not that important to discuss further anyways. I'm a little surprised the people think it's just as difficult to be a good defender as it is a good hitter considering hitting a baseball is widely accepted as one of the most difficult things in sports to do. But we can agree to disagree and move on... There are more interesting things to discuss anyways. Agreed. Last thing I'd mention, for consideration, is to consider that pretty much every shortstop in the minors who isn't an above-average defender faces the "will he stick at short" question if he's even a decent prospect. I think shortstop is unique in that sense. Maybe catcher too. I agree generally that finding an average hitter is probably harder than finding a player who could be an average MLB fielder at SOME position, rather than shortstop. Maybe that's the disconnect.
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Dec 19, 2015 14:09:30 GMT -5
Last year Freddy Galvis put up a .263/.302/.343 triple slash line while playing average SS defense for the Phillies - in his age 25 season. He was worth 1.3 fWAR. I can see Marrero having a similar triple slash line with equivalent (or better) defense. He's probably a 1-1.5 WAR player if given a chance to play full-time. Maybe better if his bat develops or his defense is 'plus' as SS. No way you move Bogaerts for that - but that's still a cost-controlled starter for a second division team, while batting 8th or 9th. That isn't great, but it still has value. (There were 5 teams that had negative fWAR from the SS position in 2015) Unless Marrero is one of those rare players that does better in the majors then minors I don't see him batting .263/.302/.343 in the majors. He could struggle to keep his ops above .600. If I had to guess I would say .235/.300/.310. I think his lack of hitting would just about cancel out his great D. If he could hit .263 and slug .343 with his on base skills and D, he might be worth 2-3 bWAR a year. Just don't see him being that good of a hitter and showing that much power. One of the biggest disappointments in our farm system for me. When you break down the evaluation of a Prospect at age 25, to me it is a waste of time. The ship has sailed on that type of player. I will say in defense of Marrero, if the Glove is a grade A at multiple positions to include SS, 3B and 2B he has value. Value in the defense for a few games to spell a starter. In exchange for a 2 million bonus, BUST! I would like to know Where Boston was on Piscotty, Gallo and McCullers in that draft?
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Dec 19, 2015 14:22:46 GMT -5
I agree he'd not a top 10 prospect in this system, but he might be able to start for some team, just not the Red Sox or any big market team. Well, as I always ask in response to any "this guy shouldn't be ranked that high!" comment, what player(s) would you rank higher? As great as the top 7 is, there is an enormous drop-off from Travis to Marrero. I get the sentiment of "what the hell is Marrero doing at 8?" because that's basically what I thought after the trade, but the fact is that an above-average-to-plus MLB defender at short has a pretty high floor. Compare that with, say, the next five guys in the rankings here at the site, who could all fail to get past Double-A and have significant development ahead of them. Meanwhile, while Marrero's ceiling would probably be starting on a second-division team for a few years, his floor is probably an MLB bench infielder, given his defense at second, third, and short. It hurts that he can't run and I doubt he'll hit, but in an environment where AL shortstops hit .264/.311/.380 and only 17 shortstops in MLB were at at least 90 wRC+, Marrero isn't going to need to hit a ton to justify a roster spot (if not a starting job). I'm assuming Alex will agree with what we've said on the podcast previously: The system is about as good as it's ever been from 1-7 (1-9 before the trade), but especially after the trade, it's really thin relative to past years from about 8-25, where you'd feel a lot more comfortable if everyone were ranked about 4-5 spots lower than they currently are, if not more. Your right about Defensive value. Defensive value for a Prospect over the age of 20 should not rank that player in the Top 10 of any Teams Prospect rankings. I'll give you a defensive whiz age 18 19 or 20 in the Top 10 only because the bat has a chance to develop.. Far as other players ranked ahead of Marrero. Longhi, Rijo, Basabe, Acosta, Rei to name a few...
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 19, 2015 16:00:56 GMT -5
Unless Marrero is one of those rare players that does better in the majors then minors I don't see him batting .263/.302/.343 in the majors. He could struggle to keep his ops above .600. If I had to guess I would say .235/.300/.310. I think his lack of hitting would just about cancel out his great D. If he could hit .263 and slug .343 with his on base skills and D, he might be worth 2-3 bWAR a year. Just don't see him being that good of a hitter and showing that much power. One of the biggest disappointments in our farm system for me. When you break down the evaluation of a Prospect at age 25, to me it is a waste of time. The ship has sailed on that type of player. I will say in defense of Marrero, if the Glove is a grade A at multiple positions to include SS, 3B and 2B he has value. Value in the defense for a few games to spell a starter. In exchange for a 2 million bonus, BUST! I would like to know Where Boston was on Piscotty, Gallo and McCullers in that draft? Jeez. I mean they can't all be superstars. Marrero looks like a very useful player. Solid utility guy or a trade option to small market team. As for where they stood on those 3 players? You can play that hindsight game all day long. It's useless. Where were 26 other teams on Betts in rounds 1-5? Complete waste of time. And Rei ahead of Marrero? Now that is comical.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 19, 2015 16:12:02 GMT -5
It it weren't for Bogaerts, there's a very real chance that Marrero would at worst be competing for the starting SS position with the Sox. A guy with a likely floor of at least a solid bench player is a pretty solid result for the 24th overall pick.
In hindsight and based on how players progressed, 24 was right around where the elite talent level fell off in the 2012 draft. Stroman went 22, Wacha 19, Seager 18, Giolito 16.
The supplemental 1st round has some scattered guys I'd take over Marrero, but again, picking 24th, it's not like your banking on a superstar. Sure, I bet they hoped his bat would project a bit better to where he could be considered a starter on 1st/2nd tier teams, but that's probably unlikely. He's a good guy to have in AAA and/or could be a decent close to MLB ready piece in a trade
|
|
|