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 deepjohn on Jun 10, 2016 8:03:27 GMT -5
Chatham is more Lowrie than Marrero. ADD: not in terms of quality, but profile. Maybe average-at-best defensively, well-rounded offensive profile. Not sure about average defense. Quick first step, good range, great arm. He can stick as a tall shortstop unlike Lowrie who moved to third (actually Lowrie did stick at short primarily). And he also could have some real pop, which carries a great premium in value at the typically weaker power RHH SS position. If he shows pop and range, he could be a great trade piece (like Guerra was), which is the reason you always pick the best player, regardless of need.
|
|
|
Post by mannofsteele on Jun 10, 2016 8:37:44 GMT -5
Chatham is more Lowrie than Marrero. ADD: not in terms of quality, but profile. Maybe average-at-best defensively, well-rounded offensive profile. Which isn't a terrible bet for a second round pick, possibly to sign for slot or lower. Lowrie does a lot of things pretty well with the bat, and while his fielding has always been suspect, he's still able to hit for all fields with gap power. It's not as sexy as a Conner Jones or Ryan Boldt pick who I was hoping for, but when a pure talent like Groome falls (which almost never happens) you snap him up. The front office is relatively the same being held over from Cherington where character was important (outside of Kukuk/Denney). With Dombrowski loving power arms and the dream situation of a raw talent falling into your laps, you snap it up. Especially if he's 1A/1B on your board. I would have been so disappointed with Thaiss in that situation, and that's not to say that Thaiss won't be in AA/AAA within the next 3 months. His bat can play and he could easily be in position to be in their (Anaheim's) line-up next season (if all things go right). So for the first time, thank you DD and Rikard and company! The possibility of having Price, Espinoza, Groome and mixing in Kopech with Eduardo Rodriguez, Porcello, etc is a dream come true. Could there ever have been a better off season marriage between Price and the Red Sox where you don't sacrifice a pick, only to come back and get a top talent falling to you at #12?
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Jun 10, 2016 8:40:07 GMT -5
It sounds like he really wanted to go to an East coast team. If you watch the video of his family celebrating, its one of the first thing they say after he gets drafted. That and the fact he left IMG Academy may have spooked some teams like the Padres. We've heard a lot about maturity and vague makeup references but often times the most simple explanation is the correct one. After watching that video of him doing scratch tickets right before they drafted him, wonder if teams just think he is an odd and just very immature guy and didnt feel comfortable taking him given the other options. Usually it leaks if there is some serious issue like potential criminal behavior. Although that still doesnt explain why Vandy "was no longer interested in having him attend." I chalk up that perception to him being a southpaw. Us lefties (and I am one myself) can be, ummmmm, different, flaky. Heck look at the person I am using in my AV if you want more proof of that...
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Jun 10, 2016 8:42:39 GMT -5
There's a difference in saying Groome will become Kershaw and Groomes scouting reports sounds a lot like Kershaws. The latter I agree with, although it's probably meaningless in and of itself. But, Groomes scouting report is pretty glowing. There's nothing negative said about his baseball skills. Great body, mechanics, fastball, curveball, velocity, command, developing change up, and young for the draft. He is also as left handed as tommy Layne. The vague maturity tag is what made him drop. I'll wait and see. Reminds me of Dan Marino in the 1983 NFL draft. He dropped & was the 6th QB taken (27th overall) due to these same issues. Even the commentators that night said the same things as the MLB guys last night. He really pushed himself to prove to the teams that passed him over that they were wrong. And did. I hope this guy has the stones that Marino had.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Jun 10, 2016 8:55:16 GMT -5
There's a difference in saying Groome will become Kershaw and Groomes scouting reports sounds a lot like Kershaws. The latter I agree with, although it's probably meaningless in and of itself. But, Groomes scouting report is pretty glowing. There's nothing negative said about his baseball skills. Great body, mechanics, fastball, curveball, velocity, command, developing change up, and young for the draft. He is also as left handed as tommy Layne. The vague maturity tag is what made him drop. I'll wait and see. Reminds me of Dan Marino in the 1983 NFL draft. He dropped & was the 6th QB taken (27th overall) due to these same issues. Even the commentators that night said the same things as the MLB guys last night. He really pushed himself to prove to the teams that passed him over that they were wrong. And did. I hope this guy has the stones that Marino had. A title would be nice too
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Jun 10, 2016 9:18:18 GMT -5
It seems Chatham could also have pitching as a fallback if it isn’t working out for him as a position player. Maybe 4 years down the line, Trey Ball will be in the outfield, and Chatham will be on the mound.
In all seriousness, I was prepared for the Red Sox to punt on the 2nd pick, if Chatham fits in that category, than you can’t be too upset with the pick. If Chatham winds up being a big part of the reason that the Sox don’t sign Groome, than you hate the pick.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,984
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 10, 2016 10:06:54 GMT -5
Wakefield Lowell Lee Lynn Everett Webster Carlisle Plympton Spencer Gardner Hanson Hancock and now Chatham
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 10, 2016 11:23:23 GMT -5
Love the Groome pick, but hate the Chatham pick. He seems like another Marrero pick, safe low ceiling player. Nolan Jones was there at 51 for the taking. A guy Law had ranked #11. Instead we get a guy that wasn't rated in his top 100 and he calls utility man or below average regular due to such a poor bat. Man I hope he is wrong. Compared to Jones were almost everyone had him rated top 30, a ton had him top 20. Man we could have had a dream start to draft. We get it, you like shiny toys. The Marrero analogy is lazy and weak at best. Chatham is a solid pick at 51. He improved every year, offensively, and won conference POY and dPOY this year. He can stay at the position and is the best college SS in a weak draft for SS. He's not going to be Tulo but likely isn't Marrero either. If you are going to rely on Keith Law for your information, good luck to you. Just don't spout his gospel as your own. BTW Chatham was ranked 63 by MLB Pipeline and 62 by Perfect Game and was widely projected to be drafted in the 30-50 range. BTW, I liked Nolan Jones at 51 (and advocated for the Red Sox to take one of the Jones boys) but let's not go overboard on Nolan Jones. He likely will end up at a corner infield spot and did not deserve a ranking in the early teens. I had Jones ranked in the 20-35 area. No I just like getting best player available and high upside guys. Law had Jones at 11, Baseball America had him at 16 and mlb.com had him at 19, but I guess you know more than all those respected draft sites. The Marrero comp is in no way weak and lazy, it's right on. Now maybe his bat developes, but he's a strong D SS, with very little pop, with questions about how good his bat will be, that is Marrero. Maybe it's not his best comp, but it's not a weak and lazy comp. Law didn't have him in top 100 and Baseball America had him at 101. I'm going to believe those rankings over MLB pipeline and Perfect Game.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 10, 2016 11:26:01 GMT -5
The Marrero comp is in no way weak and lazy, it's right on. Your insistence on equating players as types is infuriating. Your belief that your comparison of a player you'd never heard of 14 hours ago is "right on" based on the fact you perused as many as one scouting report is even moreso.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 10, 2016 11:50:38 GMT -5
The Marrero comp is in no way weak and lazy, it's right on. Your insistence on equating players as types is infuriating. Your belief that your comparison of a player you'd never heard of 14 hours ago is "right on" based on the fact you perused as many as one scouting report is even moreso. Thank you. You might not like some scouting reports, but you can't just act like they don't exist. Only time will tell which one is right.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 10, 2016 11:57:32 GMT -5
Your insistence on equating players as types is infuriating. Your belief that your comparison of a player you'd never heard of 14 hours ago is "right on" based on the fact you perused as many as one scouting report is even moreso. Thank you. You might not like some scouting reports, but you can't just act like they don't exist. Only time will tell which one is right. So if you're thanking him for calling you infuriating, I guess my theory that you're here only to troll people was correct.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 10, 2016 12:22:39 GMT -5
Thank you. You might not like some scouting reports, but you can't just act like they don't exist. Only time will tell which one is right. So if you're thanking him for calling you infuriating, I guess my theory that you're here only to troll people was correct. Your the troll dude. I made a post that people commented on, in no way was I trolling, like you are.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Jun 10, 2016 12:29:49 GMT -5
The Sox didn't punt in my opinion. I think there is an arrangement ahead of time on his signing bonus. I think he'll sign for 100k-200k below slot.
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Jun 10, 2016 12:47:51 GMT -5
Comparing Marrero to Chatham? Does not compute. Every pick taken after Groome needs to be taken under the context that we drafted Groome. Marrero was a no-bat SS taken in the first round. It was a bad pick with or without context. If you want to sign Groome, you probably shouldn't get your hopes up for exciting picks from rounds 2-10.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jun 10, 2016 20:54:06 GMT -5
For those who wanted us to draft the bc pitcher, he is getting spanked by Miami tonight.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jun 11, 2016 8:05:33 GMT -5
Comparing Marrero to Chatham? Does not compute. Every pick taken after Groome needs to be taken under the context that we drafted Groome. Marrero was a no-bat SS taken in the first round. It was a bad pick with or without context. If you want to sign Groome, you probably shouldn't get your hopes up for exciting picks from rounds 2-10. Comping Chatham to Lowrie also doesn't compute. Lowrie won the PAC10 triple crown the year he was drafted and that was when the PAC10 was one of the strongest if not the strongest conferences.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 11, 2016 8:31:09 GMT -5
The comparison to Lowrie was type (profile) of player, not quality of player. That said, Chatham was a pretty decorated college player as well-- Conference USA Player of the Year and Defensive Player of the Year, Louisville Slugger All-American First Team, semifinalist for the Golden Spikes Award, semifinalist for the Brooks Wallace Award, etc.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jun 11, 2016 8:46:55 GMT -5
Seems like more glove than Lowrie, more bat than Marrero. Maybe a comp to Lowrerro.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jun 11, 2016 9:05:39 GMT -5
Lowrie was a second baseman at Stanford, though. His ability to play SS was all projection when he was drafted. He ended up ok at short, but he wasn't winning any defensive player of the year awards.
Chatham seems like a fine pick as a second pick after Groome, pretty safe with some upside. But without really seeing him, hard to know.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jun 11, 2016 9:30:57 GMT -5
Let this be a case study in the (lack of) value in player comps.
|
|
|