|
Post by swingingbunt on Dec 14, 2017 16:42:22 GMT -5
Should we be happy nobody from the Red Sox was chosen? Or should we feel like this was an indicator of how far the farm system has fallen? Why not both!
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 14, 2017 17:14:50 GMT -5
Should we be happy nobody from the Red Sox was chosen? Or should we feel like this was an indicator of how far the farm system has fallen? Why not both! You know, I didn't even realize this, but someone had been picked from the Red Sox in all but one year from 2009-2016. That said, I don't think it means anything as an indicator of the system's health. Consider that the White Sox, arguably the top farm in the game, didn't lose anyone. The Braves and Padres, both also top systems, only lost one player each in the AAA phase. Only 13 teams lost players in the MLB phase - Yankees lost 4, D-Backs lost 2. Having a strong farm doesn't have a correlation with having guys near MLB who aren't good enough that you think they're worth protecting (or trading to prevent their being selected) but are good enough that a team will pay $100k to get a look at them in the spring.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 15, 2017 10:04:50 GMT -5
So I agree with that in an overall general sense: having a great system doesn't necessarily correlate at all with having all of those prospects having reached Rule 5 eligibility. Like, the Padres system is stacked and deep but also extremely young.
On the other hand, with the specifics of the Red Sox I think it is a symptom of system health. With a deeper roster I'm not positive they have room to protect Ty Buttrey, and he's right in line with the sort of player a team takes in the Rule 5. A roster crunch is in one way a pleasant problem for a contending team because you have a lot of potential contributors. The Red Sox ended up not really having a roster crunch, which lead to an ability to add guys like Buttrey and Jerez. And of course the lack of a crunch is in part because they traded some obvious adds in the last year (like Callahan and Dubon).
On an even more specific level, the lack of a roster crunch came because the Red Sox 2013 draft was a disaster. I think the only two players from that draft to make a 40-man roster are Asuaje and Dubon. Four of the top seven picks, all of whom were slot or above signings, appear to be out of baseball.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 15, 2017 10:26:31 GMT -5
So I agree with that in an overall general sense: having a great system doesn't necessarily correlate at all with having all of those prospects having reached Rule 5 eligibility. Like, the Padres system is stacked and deep but also extremely young. On the other hand, with the specifics of the Red Sox I think it is a symptom of system health. With a deeper roster I'm not positive they have room to protect Ty Buttrey, and he's right in line with the sort of player a team takes in the Rule 5. A roster crunch is in one way a pleasant problem for a contending team because you have a lot of potential contributors. The Red Sox ended up not really having a roster crunch, which lead to an ability to add guys like Buttrey and Jerez. And of course the lack of a crunch is in part because they traded some obvious adds in the last year (like Callahan and Dubon). On an even more specific level, the lack of a roster crunch came because the Red Sox 2013 draft was a disaster. I think the only two players from that draft to make a 40-man roster are Asuaje and Dubon. Four of the top seven picks, all of whom were slot or above signings, appear to be out of baseball. Yeah I think you really do need to consider how many guys they traded away who were added by other teams this fall, as you mention. And never mind how many were added, but how many were already on rosters (e.g., Moncada, etc.). They easily could've wound up not having room for both Buttrey and Shepherd. And that's a great point on 2013. Even the one that got away in Jordan Sheffield didn't wind up becoming much to this point, nor has the big reach in Ryan Boldt (not in the Rays' top 10 prospects on BP that was just released, for example). That said, Longhi probably belongs in the Asuaje and Dubon category because he likely would've been added if not for Tommy John.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 15, 2017 10:36:38 GMT -5
Yep, and Littrell very likely as well would've been either added or drafted if he hadn't been suspended. Plus, Gunkel and Kyle Martin were both added last winter but then DFA'd during the season (and Gunkel got claimed twice before finally passing through waivers). Still... man, the top of that draft. Woof. The Trey Ball pick gets an outsized portion of the blame, but if they'd hit on any of their next several picks as even like a role 4 dude it would've softened the blow a lot.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Dec 15, 2017 14:00:36 GMT -5
Some ideas I find hard to put together. How much of rule 5 players picked is more a reflection of simple numbers at a date on the calendar. . In the last 2 seasons the Yankees have picked up a lot of prospects and gotten rid of few. Can not keep them all.The opposite is true for the sox. Does it mean that the padres farm which has lots of A ball players is better than the sox? Only if the A ball players make it to the bigs like Mookie, XB and beni. It only takes one bad draft to mess with the numbers.
|
|