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 bosox81 on Jul 8, 2016 19:59:04 GMT -5
Margot has kept a similar OPS but one level higher. He's at an age where most good prospects would be in high A. I don't see (statswise) how anyone can say his prospects status has fallen.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 8, 2016 21:12:46 GMT -5
On the one hand, he's 21. On the other, of the qualified hitters, he ranks 85th in the PCL in OPS. That's not the progression I expected.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jul 8, 2016 21:58:17 GMT -5
Right. It's the pcl. He isn't having a very good offensive season. But, he is a defensive plus player with good speed and is very young, so more than holding your own at AAA with those attributes is good. (But note that I'm not a believer. I'd bet on an 80 wRC+ career before 100.)
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 8, 2016 22:01:23 GMT -5
A lot of people ahead of him have graduated or dropped out and staying steady isn't what you want at the AAA level. If he was still with the Sox, would you feel that way ? At the time of the trade, we (SP) had him ranked higher than Benintendi. Who's progressed more ? Of the 55 prospects ahead of Margot on BA's preseason list, just 15 have graduated, so even taking that into account, Margot has kept steady. I honestly think his value now is substantially similar to his value during the offseason. Benintendi is clearly a better prospect at this point, but that's more about Benintendi's rise than Margot's fall. You could just as well compare Margot with Devers (both BA and BP now have Margot ahead of Devers in their midseason updates). His bat, particularly his power, has not stepped forward, so his upside projection has probably been scaled back. On the other hand, he's now drawing rave reviews for his throwing, which was apparently something he focused on in the offseason and was previously considered closer to average (especially strength-wise). His defense in center field is legit, he has good at-bats, and his contact rates are superb. He's probably a Top 20 CF right now at 21 so his downside is basically nil at this point. That "if the power comes!" perfect-world projection seems more of a pipe dream now, but he's very realistically a .300/.360/.425 player in a couple years. So while I agree that his overall value and the median projection are about the same, I think the 25/75 percentile projections for him have narrowed.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 8, 2016 22:03:23 GMT -5
I'm essentially saying I was expecting more and I likely had Margot higher than I should have. Coming into this year, he was on a very similar career track to McCutchen.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 8, 2016 23:32:05 GMT -5
Of the 55 prospects ahead of Margot on BA's preseason list, just 15 have graduated, so even taking that into account, Margot has kept steady. I honestly think his value now is substantially similar to his value during the offseason. Benintendi is clearly a better prospect at this point, but that's more about Benintendi's rise than Margot's fall. You could just as well compare Margot with Devers (both BA and BP now have Margot ahead of Devers in their midseason updates). His bat, particularly his power, has not stepped forward, so his upside projection has probably been scaled back. On the other hand, he's now drawing rave reviews for his throwing, which was apparently something he focused on in the offseason and was previously considered closer to average (especially strength-wise). His defense in center field is legit, he has good at-bats, and his contact rates are superb. He's probably a Top 20 CF right now at 21 so his downside is basically nil at this point. That "if the power comes!" perfect-world projection seems more of a pipe dream now, but he's very realistically a .300/.360/.425 player in a couple years. So while I agree that his overall value and the median projection are about the same, I think the 25/75 percentile projections for him have narrowed. I get he's young, but he's now in 5th season in minors, lots of development time compared to College players. You really think in a few years he's a better hitter than he currently is in minors? Typically.300 hitters in majors tore up the minor leagues, they didn't have a .283 career minor league average.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 9, 2016 0:36:36 GMT -5
Of the 55 prospects ahead of Margot on BA's preseason list, just 15 have graduated, so even taking that into account, Margot has kept steady. I honestly think his value now is substantially similar to his value during the offseason. Benintendi is clearly a better prospect at this point, but that's more about Benintendi's rise than Margot's fall. You could just as well compare Margot with Devers (both BA and BP now have Margot ahead of Devers in their midseason updates). His bat, particularly his power, has not stepped forward, so his upside projection has probably been scaled back. On the other hand, he's now drawing rave reviews for his throwing, which was apparently something he focused on in the offseason and was previously considered closer to average (especially strength-wise). His defense in center field is legit, he has good at-bats, and his contact rates are superb. He's probably a Top 20 CF right now at 21 so his downside is basically nil at this point. That "if the power comes!" perfect-world projection seems more of a pipe dream now, but he's very realistically a .300/.360/.425 player in a couple years. So while I agree that his overall value and the median projection are about the same, I think the 25/75 percentile projections for him have narrowed. Very well-put. And high liklihood of being a solid or slightly above-average all-around regular has significant value, particularly since the error bars are probably smaller on the downside risk. A well-defined floor means a lot when it comes to projecting future needs in team-building. Put it this way: If the Sox didn't have Benintendi and Moncada, I'd prefer having Margot over Devers (and I like Devers...maybe not as much as K Law, but a lot). But since they've got some OF certainty in JBJ and Mookie, and two options at the only spot of uncertainty, I much prefer higher upside with more risk in Devers. The more major holes a team has, the more valuable the sure thing. With fewer gaping holes, the more valuable upside is (particularly, I think, if a team has lots of average to solid players). Teams with several superstars probably prefer the sure thing more than would a nearly complete team that has no or few real standouts. All of which goes to say that Margot has substantially more value to the Padres than the Sox, which is why the trade happened. And, while I've never liked it, at least why I could accept it. OTOH, it's the main reason I *really* dislike the idea of trading either Kopech or Espinoza. Since the Sox have three good starters, their rotation holes, while gaping right now, are fairly easily filled. They can find a 4 and 5. I still have abundant faith that Rodriguez will be an excellent pitcher. They can afford some risk in acquiring candidates for the 4/5. But as much as I'd like to see them get, say, James Paxton, I prefer that they go for your standard lots-of-innings-4.5ERA guy. Which I absolutely didn't in the offseason. But right now, with two holes to fill, they need reliability...fewer holes. Once they have one or no holes, a AAA innings-eater back-end prospect has almost no value to them (although he'd be very valuable right now), and what they really need will be supremely high-upside guys. FWIW, I think Kopech will be top-40 or so by season's end. And Espinoza probably top-15. I think both will take significant steps forward in the second half. And if you think about it, that says a lot about their upside, because both are probably 2-2.5 years away, with lots of mitigating risk. All of which is to say, even more reason to hold onto the top-5 with a death grip, but trade freely from any tier lower.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 9, 2016 1:31:35 GMT -5
I'm essentially saying I was expecting more and I likely had Margot higher than I should have. Coming into this year, he was on a very similar career track to McCutchen. It's a long way between McCutchen and just about everyone else - in both leagues. He's one of the 3 or 4 best players in the game. Myself, I never came close to that sort of projection for Margot, and he doesn't need to get close to that to meet expectations. I just checked the Chihuahua roster and the comparisons are laughable. He's 21 and most of the other starters look to be in their mid to late 20s, including James Loney. He's on track to make an appearance with the Padres this year, and his contact rate makes him someone to keep an eye on. He just doesn't strike out.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 9, 2016 2:35:10 GMT -5
I'm essentially saying I was expecting more and I likely had Margot higher than I should have. Coming into this year, he was on a very similar career track to McCutchen. It's a long way between McCutchen and just about everyone else - in both leagues. He's one of the 3 or 4 best players in the game. Myself, I never came close to that sort of projection for Margot, and he doesn't need to get close to that to meet expectations. I just checked the Chihuahua roster and the comparisons are laughable. He's 21 and most of the other starters look to be in their mid to late 20s, including James Loney. He's on track to make an appearance with the Padres this year, and his contact rate makes him someone to keep an eye on. He just doesn't strike out. Just for clarification, I wasn't projecting a McCutchen future. I was comparing results and histories. Up until this year, he was tracking very similarly to McCutchen but this year is where the separation began. On the other hand, I did project Margot to be more than I project him to be now. I've gone from first division starter to second division starter but that's my own opinion. Please though, don't make interpretations of my statement that didn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 9, 2016 7:37:24 GMT -5
I get he's young, but he's now in 5th season in minors, lots of development time compared to College players. Okay, I can't help myself, but this is deliciously ironic for someone whose college is his username. You can't not just count college towards his development time. Unless, of course, you think people don't develop in college... Suppose he'd transferred to the United States as a HS sophomore, played three years at like Georgia or something, was drafted this June, and was just making his debut in the New York-Penn League. I'm certain he'd be hitting .300 with incredible ease. But his year in the DSL counts as "development time" while three seasons in the SEC, plus whatever elite summer league, wouldn't? Come on.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jul 9, 2016 8:20:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure the "power will develop" is completely gone ... he's still really young. And a hidden improvement this year is his performance against RHP; he was at 288OBP/313SLG last year, 332/408 so far this year.
He's still a really good prospect. He hasn't taken a leap forward, and it's logical to think his upside is a little lower because he hasn't, but he's maintained his value at a very young age. I mean, Benintendi has clearly passed him, but Margot's still a valuable guy.
|
|
|
Post by buttclown on Jul 9, 2016 10:09:02 GMT -5
Can we talk about Devers instead of this? BA has him moving down
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jul 9, 2016 10:23:13 GMT -5
Can we talk about Devers instead of this? BA has him moving down I think this is understandable from BA when you look at the results so far, but it will turn out to be a mistake. Rafael Devers had a bit of a rough time to start the season, but he's been hitting really well for a month and a half now (349/388/504 since May 24), and, personally, he's demonstrated to me that he can definitely play third, could even be a plus defender at third. I really think he's got that kind of talent. He's a lot more athletic than people seem to think. And he's so, so young. He's still got a ways to go, but I'm bullish on him. Of course, he absolutely demolished the ball when I saw him, spraying line drives all over (and beyond) the field, so you gotta take what I say from that perspective.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jul 9, 2016 12:53:08 GMT -5
New to the board here but lurked quite a bit. Love all the discussions. I have a question regarding rankings of Moncada and Beni. The latest scales show Moncada and Beni equal yet the latest write-up has Beni around a 265-285 hitter. Moncada is a potential 5 hit tool player but yet Beni from what I read is much more of a work in-progress in terms of potential/tools such as comments made "average to above average tools." Moncada's tools and ceiling seem to be quite a bit higher from what I've read. Why then are their scales ranked the same or am I misinterpreting something?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 9, 2016 19:14:52 GMT -5
New to the board here but lurked quite a bit. Love all the discussions. I have a question regarding rankings of Moncada and Beni. The latest scales show Moncada and Beni equal yet the latest write-up has Beni around a 265-285 hitter. Moncada is a potential 5 hit tool player but yet Beni from what I read is much more of a work in-progress in terms of potential/tools such as comments made "average to above average tools." Moncada's tools and ceiling seem to be quite a bit higher from what I've read. Why then are their scales ranked the same or am I misinterpreting something? Welcome aboard. Two factors in play here. First, anytime you have a stepped ranking then you have the probability that two players are broadly the same but one could be significantly better than the other. For example, their '7' ceilings, one could be considered near the cusp of 8, the other near the cusp of 6. Since evaluations aren't an exact science, broad, graduated scales are pretty typical in the industry. Second, probability. They might both have the same projected (meaning highest likelihood band) future but one could have a substantially higher probability of exceeding that and reaching his ceiling. For ceilings in particular, player tools substantially change the probabilities. ADD: Just a guess but I'll bet that Moncada's ceiling goes up to '8' before he gets promoted to Boston. It did for both Betts and Bogaerts after they performed in the upper minors for a while. Just an opinion but I don't think that will happen with Benintendi but I think his floor will rise if given enough time.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 10, 2016 7:49:17 GMT -5
I get he's young, but he's now in 5th season in minors, lots of development time compared to College players. Okay, I can't help myself, but this is deliciously ironic for someone whose college is his username. You can't not just count college towards his development time. Unless, of course, you think people don't develop in college... Suppose he'd transferred to the United States as a HS sophomore, played three years at like Georgia or something, was drafted this June, and was just making his debut in the New York-Penn League. I'm certain he'd be hitting .300 with incredible ease. But his year in the DSL counts as "development time" while three seasons in the SEC, plus whatever elite summer league, wouldn't? Come on. Sure players develop in College, but not at the same level as minor league players. Are you really debating that? It's the main reason why international players will reach majors at younger ages compared to College players. International players also get a jump start as they can enter system at earlier ages compared to US players. Look at Espinoza, he's been in system 2 years already. If he played in US he could be Groome and still waiting on signing.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jul 10, 2016 9:26:21 GMT -5
[It's the main reason why international players will reach majors at younger ages compared to College players. I don't know if this is true or not but will take your word for it. Another factor you might be overlooking is that by entering the system earlier they become Rule 5 eligible (and thus need to be added to the 40-man) sooner. This likely causes teams to push their development at a different rate whether they are ready or not, whereas with a college player they can afford to be a bit more patient.
|
|
|
Post by cto94 on Jul 10, 2016 10:11:01 GMT -5
Okay, I can't help myself, but this is deliciously ironic for someone whose college is his username. You can't not just count college towards his development time. Unless, of course, you think people don't develop in college... Suppose he'd transferred to the United States as a HS sophomore, played three years at like Georgia or something, was drafted this June, and was just making his debut in the New York-Penn League. I'm certain he'd be hitting .300 with incredible ease. But his year in the DSL counts as "development time" while three seasons in the SEC, plus whatever elite summer league, wouldn't? Come on. Sure players develop in College, but not at the same level as minor league players. Are you really debating that? It's the main reason why international players will reach majors at younger ages compared to College players. International players also get a jump start as they can enter system at earlier ages compared to US players. Look at Espinoza, he's been in system 2 years already. If he played in US he could be Groome and still waiting on signing. Well that's pretty dependent- look at Conforto, Schwarber, Bryant, Strasburg, the track Benintendi is on... there are plenty of college guys that fly through the minors and debut young. Also, while Espinoza isn't particularly relevant to this conversation, compare him to Strasburg- it's unlikely that Espinoza debuts before 2018, and not certain that he'll debut even then. He'll be at least 21, which is not at all unheard of for top-flight college arms, though obviously not common
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Jul 10, 2016 10:18:47 GMT -5
Sure players develop in College, but not at the same level as minor league players. Are you really debating that? It's the main reason why international players will reach majors at younger ages compared to College players. International players also get a jump start as they can enter system at earlier ages compared to US players. Look at Espinoza, he's been in system 2 years already. If he played in US he could be Groome and still waiting on signing. I mean, sure, in terms in playing time, minor leaguers have more development than College players. But in terms of body development, they are on the same track, unless you believe that minor leaguers age quicker than College players do. And if I remember correctly your main beef with Margot is his lack of power is it not? Well, again, he's 21 years old. Most kids that age are not hitting for a lot of power.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jul 10, 2016 10:20:46 GMT -5
New to the board here but lurked quite a bit. Love all the discussions. I have a question regarding rankings of Moncada and Beni. The latest scales show Moncada and Beni equal yet the latest write-up has Beni around a 265-285 hitter. Moncada is a potential 5 hit tool player but yet Beni from what I read is much more of a work in-progress in terms of potential/tools such as comments made "average to above average tools." Moncada's tools and ceiling seem to be quite a bit higher from what I've read. Why then are their scales ranked the same or am I misinterpreting something? Welcome aboard. Two factors in play here. First, anytime you have a stepped ranking then you have the probability that two players are broadly the same but one could be significantly better than the other. For example, their '7' ceilings, one could be considered near the cusp of 8, the other near the cusp of 6. Since evaluations aren't an exact science, broad, graduated scales are pretty typical in the industry. Second, probability. They might both have the same projected (meaning highest likelihood band) future but one could have a substantially higher probability of exceeding that and reaching his ceiling. For ceilings in particular, player tools substantially change the probabilities. ADD: Just a guess but I'll bet that Moncada's ceiling goes up to '8' before he gets promoted to Boston. It did for both Betts and Bogaerts after they performed in the upper minors for a while. Just an opinion but I don't think that will happen with Benintendi but I think his floor will rise if given enough time. I think Moncada's got a higher ceiling, Benintendi has a bit higher floor since he's a solid defender already and has a little bit better approach at the plate from what I've seen. Personally (and this isn't really the place to argue site rankings, I guess, but just to put it in numerical terms), I'd put Moncada as 4-8, Benintendi at 4.5-7. But that makes them roughly comparable with, in my mind, an edge to Moncada that's not big enough to really be that concerned about. They're both great prospects. And, besides, when you're talking about two guys with non-trivial chances of being great players, the error bars on the projections are bigger than the perceived difference between them.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 10, 2016 13:16:59 GMT -5
Sure players develop in College, but not at the same level as minor league players. Are you really debating that? It's the main reason why international players will reach majors at younger ages compared to College players. International players also get a jump start as they can enter system at earlier ages compared to US players. Look at Espinoza, he's been in system 2 years already. If he played in US he could be Groome and still waiting on signing. I mean, sure, in terms in playing time, minor leaguers have more development than College players. But in terms of body development, they are on the same track, unless you believe that minor leaguers age quicker than College players do. And if I remember correctly your main beef with Margot is his lack of power is it not? Well, again, he's 21 years old. Most kids that age are not hitting for a lot of power. Not only more playing time, it's better coaching, player development, scouting/game prep and strength programs etc. Add that to the fact that College players have to focus on academics and things like part time jobs, and athletics. Minor leaguers have a lot more time and energy to spend on baseball without the distractions of academics. I also disagree that players age 21 don't show power, as both Moncada and Benintendi who are similar in age have shown power. Bogaerts and Betts both showed power at age 21. My biggest issue with Margot is that I felt he was overrated. One of the reasons I felt that way was his lack of power. Now I wouldn't be surprised if he developed a little more power the older he got. I just didn't see enough bat to justify his high ranking by people like Keith Law and his top 15 ranking by BP.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,699
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 10, 2016 13:32:08 GMT -5
Devers went from a -9 FRAA defender last year to a +11 mid way through this year. The last prospect I saw totally flip the switch at third base like that was Nolan Arenado.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 10, 2016 15:00:55 GMT -5
I mean, sure, in terms in playing time, minor leaguers have more development than College players. But in terms of body development, they are on the same track, unless you believe that minor leaguers age quicker than College players do. And if I remember correctly your main beef with Margot is his lack of power is it not? Well, again, he's 21 years old. Most kids that age are not hitting for a lot of power. Not only more playing time, it's better coaching, player development, scouting/game prep and strength programs etc. Add that to the fact that College players have to focus on academics and things like part time jobs, and athletics. Minor leaguers have a lot more time and energy to spend on baseball without the distractions of academics. I also disagree that players age 21 don't show power, as both Moncada and Benintendi who are similar in age have shown power. Bogaerts and Betts both showed power at age 21. My biggest issue with Margot is that I felt he was overrated. One of the reasons I felt that way was his lack of power. Now I wouldn't be surprised if he developed a little more power the older he got. I just didn't see enough bat to justify his high ranking by people like Keith Law and his top 15 ranking by BP. The only thing you're leaving out is that most males in their early 20s develop a significant amount of muscle and that seems to be age more than anything else. Some are late bloomers too. I don't think any 21 year old has reached his physical peak regardless of how many years he's had as a professional.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 10, 2016 16:04:50 GMT -5
Devers went from a -9 FRAA defender last year to a +11 mid way through this year. The last prospect I saw totally flip the switch at third base like that was Nolan Arenado. Oh, great, now I have something else I have to look at. I'd forgotten that BP had minor league defensive stats. I think their methodology is an evolution of the one Clay Davenport is still using; he has him going from 0 to +12. And BTW, Devers is +11 .9 FRAA, in 71 games, which is +25 R/150. No wonder why he seems to make a great play every time a forum member sees him in person. I think that all of the evaluations that worry about him putting on weight because of his "body type" and having to move to 1B, and hence ding him a bit in the rankings, are very old-school. It seems to me to be just a step above saying a player has "the good face."
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 10, 2016 17:53:04 GMT -5
Devers went from a -9 FRAA defender last year to a +11 mid way through this year. The last prospect I saw totally flip the switch at third base like that was Nolan Arenado. Oh, great, now I have something else I have to look at. I'd forgotten that BP had minor league defensive stats. I think their methodology is an evolution of the one Clay Davenport is still using; he has him going from 0 to +12. And BTW, Devers is +11 .9 FRAA, in 71 games, which is +25 R/150. No wonder why he seems to make a great play every time a forum member sees him in person. I think that all of the evaluations that worry about him putting on weight because of his "body type" and having to move to 1B, and hence ding him a bit in the rankings, are very old-school. It seems to me to be just a step above saying a player has "the good face." "Calm eyes."
|
|
|