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 Rankings
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 13, 2016 10:00:40 GMT -5
For reference, I could only find 3 pitchers in BA's history that pitched professionally in the USA at age 17 then got ranked by BA prior to their age 18 seasons. King Felix 30 Our guy 19 Urias 10 (He was also ranked 59th after his age 16 season pitching in Mexico). Rare turf here, not a lot of data points.... And Urias has an August birthday, so he was an "old" 17 with an additional year of experience.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 13, 2016 11:55:43 GMT -5
For reference, I could only find 3 pitchers in BA's history that pitched professionally in the USA at age 17 then got ranked by BA prior to their age 18 seasons. King Felix 30 Our guy 19 Urias 10 (He was also ranked 59th after his age 16 season pitching in Mexico). Rare turf here, not a lot of data points.... It's worth noting that Urias had turned 17 the previous August, while Espinoza turned 17 just before the season began, in March. Now, usually age is a proxy for experience, but not when you're 17; it's still about physical maturity. Felix was a month younger than Neo.
|
|
|
Post by brnichols19873 on Feb 13, 2016 11:58:58 GMT -5
While I thought Espinoza would be lower, he's so extraordinary, I can certainly see being aggressive with him. But Benintendi is the bigger surprise to me; dropping a 70 on his hit tool is big. I didn't realize it was quite so well-regarded. That's a really high grade. Screw it, let's shoot for 4 in the top 5 next year. No confidence in Kopech ? Look at the scouting grades, we've heard that his changeup was much improved at Fall Instrux. Im super excited about Kopech as he seems to be using the setback and doubters as fuel to get better, just checked his twitter and this tweet and pictures from late Jan workouts are bery encouraging, looks to be up to 220 225 up from the"lanky 195" when drafted
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 13, 2016 13:00:14 GMT -5
While I thought Espinoza would be lower, he's so extraordinary, I can certainly see being aggressive with him. But Benintendi is the bigger surprise to me; dropping a 70 on his hit tool is big. I didn't realize it was quite so well-regarded. That's a really high grade. Screw it, let's shoot for 4 in the top 5 next year. No confidence in Kopech ? Look at the scouting grades, we've heard that his changeup was much improved at Fall Instrux. Well, I didn't say how many Sox will be in the Top 10 ...
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 13, 2016 13:40:53 GMT -5
No confidence in Kopech ? Look at the scouting grades, we've heard that his changeup was much improved at Fall Instrux. Well, I didn't say how many Sox will be in the Top 10 ... Pessimist, all 5 of the top 5...
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Feb 14, 2016 6:13:57 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm really tired of people (especially scouting professionals) citing a pitcher's size as an injury risk factor. I've seen at least a couple analyses, and the only statistically measurable effect is for under 6', and it's basically negligible. It's an urban legend. Selection bias-- short guys who can't stay healthy don't get drafted/make the majors/have success in the majors. AB won a national player of the yr award as a senior in high school and was not considered a top prospect. He then wins college player of the yr and the Sox get him at #8. If he was 6'3" where might he have gone coming out of high school? #8 isn't bad but would he have been top 3? For sure.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Feb 14, 2016 7:45:26 GMT -5
Screw it, let's shoot for 4 in the top 5 next year. I know this is not how it works but if you simply remove all the guys with 2016 ETAs this might not actually be that far off.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Feb 14, 2016 7:59:24 GMT -5
Screw it, let's shoot for 4 in the top 5 next year. I know this is not how it works but if you simply remove all the guys with 2016 ETAs this might not actually be that far off. Four of the top six with ETAs after 2016.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Feb 15, 2016 11:26:22 GMT -5
Kopech could also shoot up the rankings along with our 12th pick possibly. We could have a top 3 farm system or higher.
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Feb 15, 2016 13:50:30 GMT -5
Not to beat a dead horse but has anyone mentioned Austin Meadows is 22 on this list? Yikes!
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,982
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 15, 2016 14:16:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 15, 2016 15:11:57 GMT -5
Not to beat a dead horse but has anyone mentioned Austin Meadows is 22 on this list? Yikes! Remember, the process that led to Trey Ball led to Devers, Espinoza, and Benintendi. I guess Moncada too, but he was a known commodity. You can't look at the misses in a vacuum like that (without going too far down the road of calling Ball a miss again, which isn't my intention here). Not to mention Betts, Bogaerts, Owens, Vazquez, Swihart, Bradley... even Marrero and Johnson, who both were pretty good gets at where they were picked. There is no perfect, foolproof system for identifying talent, and the Red Sox have had more hits than misses. My bigger dead horse gripe: How good would the system be right now if they'd used Lester and Lackey to restock the farm rather than insisting on major league talent? I'm still okay with how the Lester thing worked out (I am ever the believer in Porcello), but given the scouting staff's ability to recognize amateur and minor league talent the whole 2014 deadline looks even more curious in hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Feb 15, 2016 15:19:53 GMT -5
Not to beat a dead horse but has anyone mentioned Austin Meadows is 22 on this list? Yikes! Remember, the process that led to Trey Ball led to Devers, Espinoza, and Benintendi. I guess Moncada too, but he was a known commodity. You can't look at the misses in a vacuum like that (without going too far down the road of calling Ball a miss again, which isn't my intention here). Not to mention Betts, Bogaerts, Owens, Vazquez, Swihart, Bradley... even Marrero and Johnson, who both were pretty good gets at where they were picked. There is no perfect, foolproof system for identifying talent, and the Red Sox have had more hits than misses. M y bigger dead horse gripe: How good would the system be right now if they'd used Lester and Lackey to restock the farm rather than insisting on major league talent? I'm still okay with how the Lester thing worked out (I am ever the believer in Porcello), but given the scouting staff's ability to recognize amateur and minor league talent the whole 2014 deadline looks even more curious in hindsight. Yup, I would have settled for Addison Russell and Alex Reyes.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,982
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 15, 2016 16:42:56 GMT -5
not in the rankings; new movie
"The Choice" PG-13 2016 ‧ Drama film/Romance ‧ Travis Shaw (Benjamin Walker) is a ladies' man who thinks a serious relationship would cramp his easygoing lifestyle. Gabby Holland (Teresa Palmer) is a feisty medical student who's preparing to settle down with her long-term boyfriend (Tom Welling). Fate brings the two together as Gabby moves next … More
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Feb 15, 2016 16:56:01 GMT -5
not in the rankings; new movie "The Choice" PG-13 2016 ‧ Drama film/Romance ‧ Travis Shaw (Benjamin Walker) is a ladies' man who thinks a serious relationship would cramp his easygoing lifestyle. Gabby Holland (Teresa Palmer) is a feisty medical student who's preparing to settle down with her long-term boyfriend (Tom Welling). Fate brings the two together as Gabby moves next … More We made it
|
|
|
Post by geostorm on Feb 15, 2016 17:03:11 GMT -5
...with just four other AL teams in the top half of that list - Texas/Hou @ #3-#4, MIN @ #8 and Tampa @ #15...
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,982
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 15, 2016 17:08:50 GMT -5
not in the rankings; new movie "The Choice" PG-13 2016 ‧ Drama film/Romance ‧ Travis Shaw (Benjamin Walker) is a ladies' man who thinks a serious relationship would cramp his easygoing lifestyle. Gabby Holland (Teresa Palmer) is a feisty medical student who's preparing to settle down with her long-term boyfriend (Tom Welling). Fate brings the two together as Gabby moves next door. Hilarity ensues when Travis' friend Mookie leaves a golf cart with the parking brake...
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 15, 2016 19:48:00 GMT -5
Not to beat a dead horse but has anyone mentioned Austin Meadows is 22 on this list? Yikes! Remember, the process that led to Trey Ball led to Devers, Espinoza, and Benintendi. I guess Moncada too, but he was a known commodity. You can't look at the misses in a vacuum like that (without going too far down the road of calling Ball a miss again, which isn't my intention here). Not to mention Betts, Bogaerts, Owens, Vazquez, Swihart, Bradley... even Marrero and Johnson, who both were pretty good gets at where they were picked. There is no perfect, foolproof system for identifying talent, and the Red Sox have had more hits than misses. My bigger dead horse gripe: How good would the system be right now if they'd used Lester and Lackey to restock the farm rather than insisting on major league talent? I'm still okay with how the Lester thing worked out (I am ever the believer in Porcello), but given the scouting staff's ability to recognize amateur and minor league talent the whole 2014 deadline looks even more curious in hindsight. I felt the same way at the time about those trades. The Cespedes deal was...meh, but not a huge bummer. And I thought getting Porcello was a good turnaround given that Lester had just a half-season left (although I sure wish they'd gotten, say, Addison Russell back at the deadline). But the Lackey trade...St Loius was stocked, and they could potentially have pried Reyes away, as he was a lot more raw, and Lackey's contract was a huge bargain. Then again, those trades gave them enough MLB "talent" in return that they could go best-prospect-available in the Miller-Rodriguez deal, which looks like a ludicrous steal (and did, though not to the same extent, back then). If things go their way this spring, by late June the Sox may have an extra starter or two to deal, and have the 12th pick in the draft. They're in good shape to keep their system strong for at least a couple more years, *especially* if a few pseudo-sleepers (Chavis, Acosta, Cosart, Ball, Rijo) regain their luster, or true sleepers break out.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 15, 2016 19:50:11 GMT -5
Remember, the process that led to Trey Ball led to Devers, Espinoza, and Benintendi. I guess Moncada too, but he was a known commodity. You can't look at the misses in a vacuum like that (without going too far down the road of calling Ball a miss again, which isn't my intention here). Not to mention Betts, Bogaerts, Owens, Vazquez, Swihart, Bradley... even Marrero and Johnson, who both were pretty good gets at where they were picked. There is no perfect, foolproof system for identifying talent, and the Red Sox have had more hits than misses. M y bigger dead horse gripe: How good would the system be right now if they'd used Lester and Lackey to restock the farm rather than insisting on major league talent? I'm still okay with how the Lester thing worked out (I am ever the believer in Porcello), but given the scouting staff's ability to recognize amateur and minor league talent the whole 2014 deadline looks even more curious in hindsight. Yup, I would have settled for Addison Russell and Alex Reyes. Just went back and read this. I like the way you think.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 16, 2016 22:07:45 GMT -5
BA named Lakins the #96 RHP prospect. That's roughly like being the #285 overall prospect.
Espinoza was 4 (of course) and Kopech 25.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 17, 2016 2:41:57 GMT -5
Remember, the process that led to Trey Ball led to Devers, Espinoza, and Benintendi. I guess Moncada too, but he was a known commodity. You can't look at the misses in a vacuum like that (without going too far down the road of calling Ball a miss again, which isn't my intention here). Not to mention Betts, Bogaerts, Owens, Vazquez, Swihart, Bradley... even Marrero and Johnson, who both were pretty good gets at where they were picked. There is no perfect, foolproof system for identifying talent, and the Red Sox have had more hits than misses. My bigger dead horse gripe: How good would the system be right now if they'd used Lester and Lackey to restock the farm rather than insisting on major league talent? I'm still okay with how the Lester thing worked out (I am ever the believer in Porcello), but given the scouting staff's ability to recognize amateur and minor league talent the whole 2014 deadline looks even more curious in hindsight. I felt the same way at the time about those trades. The Cespedes deal was...meh, but not a huge bummer. And I thought getting Porcello was a good turnaround given that Lester had just a half-season left (although I sure wish they'd gotten, say, Addison Russell back at the deadline). But the Lackey trade...St Loius was stocked, and they could potentially have pried Reyes away, as he was a lot more raw, and Lackey's contract was a huge bargain. Then again, those trades gave them enough MLB "talent" in return that they could go best-prospect-available in the Miller-Rodriguez deal, which looks like a ludicrous steal (and did, though not to the same extent, back then). If things go their way this spring, by late June the Sox may have an extra starter or two to deal, and have the 12th pick in the draft. They're in good shape to keep their system strong for at least a couple more years, *especially* if a few pseudo-sleepers (Chavis, Acosta, Cosart, Ball, Rijo) regain their luster, or true sleepers break out. I'm still trying to find the value in the Lackey deal. I don't get what Cherrington was going for there. It was by far the worst trade of his stay in Boston. Trading for a declining 1B/OF in Craig coming off injuries and a down season while being on the hook for his 25 million total salary for three seasons. That and a 26 year old undurable unproven starter in the big leagues in Joe Kelly. They should've kept Lackey and dealt him in the off-season if he didn't want to stay at the league minimum that year. The Sox made that trade just to make a trade and it actually hurt their payroll because of it. There was almost zero value out of that deal, if not negative value. Ohh and the kicker, the Sox traded a left handed starter that was a second round pick in that deal too. Man I hate that trade.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 17, 2016 13:36:04 GMT -5
I felt the same way at the time about those trades. The Cespedes deal was...meh, but not a huge bummer. And I thought getting Porcello was a good turnaround given that Lester had just a half-season left (although I sure wish they'd gotten, say, Addison Russell back at the deadline). But the Lackey trade...St Loius was stocked, and they could potentially have pried Reyes away, as he was a lot more raw, and Lackey's contract was a huge bargain. Then again, those trades gave them enough MLB "talent" in return that they could go best-prospect-available in the Miller-Rodriguez deal, which looks like a ludicrous steal (and did, though not to the same extent, back then). If things go their way this spring, by late June the Sox may have an extra starter or two to deal, and have the 12th pick in the draft. They're in good shape to keep their system strong for at least a couple more years, *especially* if a few pseudo-sleepers (Chavis, Acosta, Cosart, Ball, Rijo) regain their luster, or true sleepers break out. I'm still trying to find the value in the Lackey deal. I don't get what Cherrington was going for there. It was by far the worst trade of his stay in Boston. Trading for a declining 1B/OF in Craig coming off injuries and a down season while being on the hook for his 25 million total salary for three seasons. That and a 26 year old undurable unproven starter in the big leagues in Joe Kelly. They should've kept Lackey and dealt him in the off-season if he didn't want to stay at the league minimum that year. The Sox made that trade just to make a trade and it actually hurt their payroll because of it. There was almost zero value out of that deal, if not negative value. Ohh and the kicker, the Sox traded a left handed starter that was a second round pick in that deal too. Man I hate that trade. The thought process was that Allan Craig was going to revert to being the run producer he had always been (and for a reasonable price) and Joe Kelly's stuff was so nasty he would make the big leap forward to a front line starter while they had him under control for a bunch of years and cheap dollars. Here's hoping the latter is true. At least there's still a chance there and that would salvage the deal if it ever came to fruition. I can honestly say at the time I wasn't a big believer in Craig's ability to bounce back, and for once I was right unfortunately. Honestly, I don't think Kelly will ever be a front line starter. I have trouble believing, that even if he improves his pitching, he'll be able to provide a lot of innings in the process. I think if the light comes on, then perhaps he's Clay Buchholz meaning he can provide quality, but not quantity. At least that does contain value, but that's a pretty big leap to make. Even though I do think Porcello will pitch more like a good #4 starter or OK #3 starter, I'll always wonder what prospect packages the Sox could have gotten for Lester and Lackey. If they did get better prospect packages perhaps they wouldn't be as thin beyond their top 5 or 6.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Feb 17, 2016 14:27:46 GMT -5
Ohh and the kicker, the Sox traded a left handed starter that was a second round pick in that deal too. Man I hate that trade. Do you mean Corey Littrell? 5th round pick?
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 17, 2016 14:53:05 GMT -5
Ohh and the kicker, the Sox traded a left handed starter that was a second round pick in that deal too. Man I hate that trade. Do you mean Corey Littrell? 5th round pick? Yeap Littrell. I thought he was a second rounder. Either way, terrible deal.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 17, 2016 15:47:22 GMT -5
I'm still trying to find the value in the Lackey deal. I don't get what Cherrington was going for there. It was by far the worst trade of his stay in Boston. Trading for a declining 1B/OF in Craig coming off injuries and a down season while being on the hook for his 25 million total salary for three seasons. That and a 26 year old undurable unproven starter in the big leagues in Joe Kelly. They should've kept Lackey and dealt him in the off-season if he didn't want to stay at the league minimum that year. The Sox made that trade just to make a trade and it actually hurt their payroll because of it. There was almost zero value out of that deal, if not negative value. Ohh and the kicker, the Sox traded a left handed starter that was a second round pick in that deal too. Man I hate that trade. The thought process was that Allan Craig was going to revert to being the run producer he had always been (and for a reasonable price) and Joe Kelly's stuff was so nasty he would make the big leap forward to a front line starter while they had him under control for a bunch of years and cheap dollars. Here's hoping the latter is true. At least there's still a chance there and that would salvage the deal if it ever came to fruition. I can honestly say at the time I wasn't a big believer in Craig's ability to bounce back, and for once I was right unfortunately. Honestly, I don't think Kelly will ever be a front line starter. I have trouble believing, that even if he improves his pitching, he'll be able to provide a lot of innings in the process. I think if the light comes on, then perhaps he's Clay Buchholz meaning he can provide quality, but not quantity. At least that does contain value, but that's a pretty big leap to make. Even though I do think Porcello will pitch more like a good #4 starter or OK #3 starter, I'll always wonder what prospect packages the Sox could have gotten for Lester and Lackey. If they did get better prospect packages perhaps they wouldn't be as thin beyond their top 5 or 6. Given the price of pitching now, the Lester deal turned out pretty well. We could probably trade Porcello for an insane prospect package at this point.
|
|
|