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 grandsalami on Feb 10, 2016 13:49:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Feb 10, 2016 13:58:26 GMT -5
#10, notes graduation of former prospects and Kimbrel trade as reason for drop
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Feb 10, 2016 15:39:34 GMT -5
With our top 4 I don't think we can be outside the top 5 IMO. I guess we're getting pretty thin though.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Feb 10, 2016 15:42:34 GMT -5
Law's comment that the Red Sox farm system has been "decimated" is ridiculous. Diluted by graduations and the San Diego trade, yes. Decimated, no.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Feb 10, 2016 16:09:10 GMT -5
Law's comment that the Red Sox farm system has been "decimated" is ridiculous. Diluted by graduations and the San Diego trade, yes. Decimated, no. Decimated is a bad word to use, because it suggests that the Red Sox system is in bad condition, but we did "lose" 5 top 25 prospects in the last two years: Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, E-Rod, and Margot. Add in Bradley, Owens, Barnes (who all spent time as a top 50 prospect at one point), Guerra, Vazquez, Shaw, and Workman and you can see that we had a lot of turn over in the last 2 years. If 2015 was more in line with BC's plan, Swihart and probably E-Rod + Owens would still be eligible for this list, (and so would Margot and Guerra) and that would put us 1st or 2nd, but that doesn't mean the team is worse off because these guys are not counted. I am surprised we are 10th though. I think the top 5 match up with any other top 5 in the league and I don't buy that we are shallow after that. I'd say our #6-20 prospects are at least league average compared to other systems. Johnson and Light are underrated IMO, and I see both of them having MLB success in the near future, you also got some role players and some upside in that group. Anyone mind sharing who else ranked ahead of us?
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on Feb 10, 2016 16:19:45 GMT -5
Braves, dodgers, twins, cubs, brewers, phillies, rockies, pirates, rangers were ahead of the Red Sox
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Feb 10, 2016 16:19:51 GMT -5
Law's comment that the Red Sox farm system has been "decimated" is ridiculous. Diluted by graduations and the San Diego trade, yes. Decimated, no. Decimated is a bad word to use, because it suggests that the Red Sox system is in bad condition, but we did "lose" 5 top 25 prospects in the last two years: Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, E-Rod, and Margot. Add in Bradley, Owens, Barnes (who all spent time as a top 50 prospect at one point), Guerra, Vazquez, Shaw, and Workman and you can see that we had a lot of turn over in the last 2 years. If 2015 was more in line with BC's plan, Swihart and probably E-Rod + Owens would still be eligible for this list, (and so would Margot and Guerra) and that would put us 1st or 2nd, but that doesn't mean the team is worse off because these guys are not counted. I am surprised we are 10th though. I think the top 5 match up with any other top 5 in the league and I don't buy that we are shallow after that. I'd say our #6-20 prospects are at least league average compared to other systems. Johnson and Light are underrated IMO, and I see both of them having MLB success in the near future, you also got some role players and some upside in that group. Anyone mind sharing who else ranked ahead of us? No prob: 1 - Atlanta 2 - LA (NL) 3 - Minnesota 4 -Chicago (NL) 5 - Milwaukee 6 - Philly 7 - Colorado 8 - Pittsburgh 9 -Texas 10 - us I have some minor quibbles, but generally think he got us in the right tier I suppose. I'm probably higher on Colorado than Law, lower however on ATL and MIL. I get that Atlanta's system is much improved, but I Iike our top 4 more than their top 4.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 10, 2016 17:03:48 GMT -5
To be fair, "decimated" originally comes from the Roman practice of killing one out of every ten soldiers in a group as a punishment for the whole group. So, maybe he's thinking the system lost a small-but-significant fraction of its players as punishment for the failure of the major league team, which makes him more precise and accurate historically than you might expect.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Feb 10, 2016 18:01:58 GMT -5
To be fair, "decimated" originally comes from the Roman practice of killing one out of every ten soldiers in a group as a punishment for the whole group. So, maybe he's thinking the system lost a small-but-significant fraction of its players as punishment for the failure of the major league team, which makes him more precise and accurate historically than you might expect. Great, I giggled out loud at the gym like a weirdo.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Feb 10, 2016 18:15:29 GMT -5
To be fair, "decimated" originally comes from the Roman practice of killing one out of every ten soldiers in a group as a punishment for the whole group. So, maybe he's thinking the system lost a small-but-significant fraction of its players as punishment for the failure of the major league team, which makes him more precise and accurate historically than you might expect. I didn't expect to learn the etymology and usage of the word 'decimate' today. I definitely didn't expect to learn it on Sox Prospects. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 10, 2016 19:27:03 GMT -5
Law's comment that the Red Sox farm system has been "decimated" is ridiculous. Diluted by graduations and the San Diego trade, yes. Decimated, no. Decimated is a bad word to use, because it suggests that the Red Sox system is in bad condition, but we did "lose" 5 top 25 prospects in the last two years: Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, E-Rod, and Margot. Add in Bradley, Owens, Barnes (who all spent time as a top 50 prospect at one point), Guerra, Vazquez, Shaw, and Workman and you can see that we had a lot of turn over in the last 2 years. If 2015 was more in line with BC's plan, Swihart and probably E-Rod + Owens would still be eligible for this list, (and so would Margot and Guerra) and that would put us 1st or 2nd, but that doesn't mean the team is worse off because these guys are not counted. I am surprised we are 10th though. I think the top 5 match up with any other top 5 in the league and I don't buy that we are shallow after that. I'd say our #6-20 prospects are at least league average compared to other systems. Johnson and Light are underrated IMO, and I see both of them having MLB success in the near future, you also got some role players and some upside in that group. Anyone mind sharing who else ranked ahead of us? This. If you were to do a U-25 list, it's probably Sox and Cubs at the top and everyone else way behind. Look at it this way: while the rankings beyond, say, the top 7 are as weak as they've been in about five years, the Young Graduates and U-25 list are probably as good as they've been in the decade I've been writing for this site. The system has, at worst, four top-70 players and probably four top-50 players, and they would get bumped to at least 3-6 in the U-25 list, with Swihart and Rodriguez potentially working their way in there. Kopech, a fringe top 100 guy at 5, gets bumped down to at least 10 or 11. There's depth and talent there. It's just not depth and talent that counts in a "farm system ranking."
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by gerry on Feb 10, 2016 19:52:55 GMT -5
Decimated is a bad word to use, because it suggests that the Red Sox system is in bad condition, but we did "lose" 5 top 25 prospects in the last two years: Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart, E-Rod, and Margot. Add in Bradley, Owens, Barnes (who all spent time as a top 50 prospect at one point), Guerra, Vazquez, Shaw, and Workman and you can see that we had a lot of turn over in the last 2 years. If 2015 was more in line with BC's plan, Swihart and probably E-Rod + Owens would still be eligible for this list, (and so would Margot and Guerra) and that would put us 1st or 2nd, but that doesn't mean the team is worse off because these guys are not counted. I am surprised we are 10th though. I think the top 5 match up with any other top 5 in the league and I don't buy that we are shallow after that. I'd say our #6-20 prospects are at least league average compared to other systems. Johnson and Light are underrated IMO, and I see both of them having MLB success in the near future, you also got some role players and some upside in that group. Anyone mind sharing who else ranked ahead of us? This. If you were to do a U-25 list, it's probably Sox and Cubs at the top and everyone else way behind. Look at it this way: while the rankings beyond, say, the top 7 are as weak as they've been in about five years, the Young Graduates and U-25 list are probably as good as they've been in the decade I've been writing for this site. The system has, at worst, four top-70 players and probably four top-50 players, and they would get bumped to at least 3-6 in the U-25 list, with Swihart and Rodriguez potentially working their way in there. Kopech, a fringe top 100 guy at 5, gets bumped down to at least 10 or 11. There's depth and talent there. It's just not depth and talent that counts in a "farm system ranking." Looked at a bit differently: 1. 7 of the teams ahead of the Sox, after being "decimated" are in the NL. Only the Twins and Rangers are ranked higher in the AL. 2. The purpose of the farm is to feed good players to the ML team. This decimation provided about 15 good to excellent players to the Sox over the last few years; approaching the Theo/Ben dream of a largely home grown contender. 3. Even formerly top prospects from other farm systems (Atlanta, Pitsburg, Seattle) now augment the home grown core. 4. The Farm System has done and continues to do its job, creating a largely home grown team which, with a few of its current top 10, will look very similar in 2020 to this 2016 squad.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Feb 10, 2016 22:36:11 GMT -5
To be fair, "decimated" originally comes from the Roman practice of killing one out of every ten soldiers in a group as a punishment for the whole group. So, maybe he's thinking the system lost a small-but-significant fraction of its players as punishment for the failure of the major league team, which makes him more precise and accurate historically than you might expect. I m delighted that you brought up the original meaning. Don't take my following comments and the link as criticism of your post. 1. Ten percent of the top prospects were not culled by execution. Therefore, the historical use of the word "decimate" was incorrect. 2. Those of you who love these love word and phrase origin exploration may like this article from the "ultimate" authority--the Oxford Dictionary. Orgin and current meaning of "decimated"
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 11, 2016 7:16:46 GMT -5
This. If you were to do a U-25 list, it's probably Sox and Cubs at the top and everyone else way behind. Look at it this way: while the rankings beyond, say, the top 7 are as weak as they've been in about five years, the Young Graduates and U-25 list are probably as good as they've been in the decade I've been writing for this site. The system has, at worst, four top-70 players and probably four top-50 players, and they would get bumped to at least 3-6 in the U-25 list, with Swihart and Rodriguez potentially working their way in there. Kopech, a fringe top 100 guy at 5, gets bumped down to at least 10 or 11. There's depth and talent there. It's just not depth and talent that counts in a "farm system ranking." Looked at a bit differently: 1. 7 of the teams ahead of the Sox, after being "decimated" are in the NL. Only the Twins and Rangers are ranked higher in the AL. 2. The purpose of the farm is to feed good players to the ML team. This decimation provided about 15 good to excellent players to the Sox over the last few years; approaching the Theo/Ben dream of a largely home grown contender. 3. Even formerly top prospects from other farm systems (Atlanta, Pitsburg, Seattle) now augment the home grown core. 4. The Farm System has done and continues to do its job, creating a largely home grown team which, with a few of its current top 10, will look very similar in 2020 to this 2016 squad. You're leaving out an important purpose of the farm system - to give the team prospects they can trade. It's great that they have so many young guys contributing to the team, but to use any of them in a trade requires taking away from the current team to improve the current team which creates a different hole to fill. So now if there are any holes to fill, you're talking about a really painful trade of one/some of the top 4. There is almost no way to trade just prospects for anyone of value without dipping into those top 4. That's the result of using all of the tradeable prospects in the Kimbrel trade.
|
|
|
Post by galamann on Feb 11, 2016 7:52:54 GMT -5
7) Devers 17) Moncada 18) Benintendi 25) Margot 34) Guerra 38) Espinoza
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 11, 2016 11:09:18 GMT -5
The Red Sox, Cubs, and Astros have a ton of graduated under-25 talent. The fact the Cubs are still fourth is pretty nuts, but overall system ratings don't tell the story in those cases. I do think that the lack of depth from the 2012 and 2013 drafts have taken some toll on the overall strength of the system as well.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Feb 11, 2016 12:35:29 GMT -5
Man, Keith Law says some outlandish stuff, and then neglects to mention important details. For one, there is almost no mention of Moncada's baserunning impact in his writeup. With Javier Guerra he ends with this: "and at 19, he's young enough to become a more patient hitter and develop into a possible cleanup hitter who competes for MVP awards."
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Feb 11, 2016 12:46:32 GMT -5
So he's never actually seen Guerra play, right?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 11, 2016 13:26:22 GMT -5
So he's never actually seen Guerra play, right? Or Moncada if he thinks he's 17th.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 11, 2016 13:28:51 GMT -5
Man, Keith Law says some outlandish stuff, and then neglects to mention important details. For one, there is almost no mention of Moncada's baserunning impact in his writeup. With Javier Guerra he ends with this: "and at 19, he's young enough to become a more patient hitter and develop into a possible cleanup hitter who competes for MVP awards." He also picks an admittedly arbitrary July 1 to split Moncada's slow start off from the rest of the season, when there was an actual obvious break point, the four days off for the league ASB. He was 2/16, 6 SO, 1 SB, in the four games before the break and 7/15, 2 2B, BB, HBP, 3 SO, 5 SB in the four games after. He had a 576 OPS before the break, 915 afterwards.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 11, 2016 13:55:34 GMT -5
klawchat going on now :
"Kopech might have made the [top 100] list if he hadn't been suspended and had shown he could hold that stuff all year. He was off the charts in short stints in instructs. Definite candidate to be top 50 next offseason."
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,780
|
Post by mobaz on Feb 11, 2016 16:00:49 GMT -5
klawchat going on now : "Kopech might have made the [top 100] list if he hadn't been suspended and had shown he could hold that stuff all year. He was off the charts in short stints in instructs. Definite candidate to be top 50 next offseason." And more importantly: Matt: Just had an interesting office convo regarding this chat that we need you to settle – Should this chat be pronounced “Clawchat” or “Kay-Law chat”? Klaw: My nickname has been “Klaw” (like “claw”) for about 25 years now. So it’s two syllables, Klawchat. Mind Blown. I always assumed Kay-Law.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 11, 2016 17:10:26 GMT -5
7) Devers 17) Moncada 18) Benintendi 25) Margot 34) Guerra 38) Espinoza My god, he LOVES him some Devers, doesn't he? I mean, he's consistent about it, so it's fine by me, but good lord does he take the 90th percentile projection on him.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 11, 2016 17:37:36 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 12, 2016 0:00:53 GMT -5
7) Devers 17) Moncada 18) Benintendi 25) Margot 34) Guerra 38) Espinoza My god, he LOVES him some Devers, doesn't he? I mean, he's consistent about it, so it's fine by me, but good lord does he take the 90th percentile projection on him. One of the newsstand yearbooks (Lindy's?) has Devers at 7. And Moncada at 3! What makes the top 4 so exciting is that they each one has at least some people who think he's elite. More than one observer has noted that you could justify putting them in almost any order. Personally, I have Devers 4th. Re KLaw's low ranking of Espinoza relative to the blurb, he makes it pretty clear that he's factoring in injury risk heavily. If you think he's going overboard there, the ranking certainly skyrockets.
|
|
|