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.
Sickels: Sox have 9th-best system
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 28, 2013 21:51:10 GMT -5
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,755
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jan 28, 2013 22:22:32 GMT -5
Good spot to be in. And since we are a system with a good amount of breakout/rebound candidates (Kukuk, Margot, Jacobs, Vinicio, Buttrey, Suarez, Montas) I think there's a decent chance we climb even higher next year. It also helps that we have such a high pick in this years draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Jan 29, 2013 7:49:13 GMT -5
The Sox system should definitely rank higher next year. We don't have too many prospects that will graduate. Maybe De La Rosa and Iglesias. Long shot would be Brentz. Iglesias and Brentz could even be traded. Let's hope the top prospects continue to improve and some lower level prospects shoot up the charts. It should be a good season to follow the prospects as the best ones are on the cusp and the players drafted/signed in the last two years should start showing something, good or bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 29, 2013 9:11:02 GMT -5
It's all subjective, but do people generally factor in De La Rosa in these rankings? He's on the list here, but he's not technically a prospect ...
Anyway, I agree with Sickels that the difference between, say, #6 and #9 or #9 and #14 is mostly bull**** ... but it's nice to be up in the top level. And there are a lot of interesting guys to follow this year, good stories to keep track of ... all of the big names (De La Rosa, Barnes, Bogaerts, Webster etc) could take steps up, I'm interested to see what happens with Ranaudo, Workman could solidify himself this year, and all that's just in the top two levels, along with Lavarnway and Iglesias. Lower down there is a ton of interesting guys to watch, from Cecchini to Owens to Swihart, Merrero, a lot of the pitching in Greenville (Light, Buttrey, Johnson), Margot, Lin ... it's a dynamic system, maybe more so than at any time in my prospect-watching time with the Sox.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 29, 2013 10:30:49 GMT -5
DLR is not by definition a prospect, and not factored into Sickles list. Although these lists are subjective, and you shouldn't be upset if your team is down a couple of spots, I think they are a very entertaining read. The Sox have been climbing these lists over the last year and a half. I would much rather see a list of young players under control for next 4+ years. For example, Nationals don't have a top farm system because Stratsburg and Harper graduated, but they have do have a bright future that is not represented on the list. I like that we have talent that projects as major leaguers, but we are missing all star talent once you take out Bogaerts. I would of liked to see a trade for Myers or Bauer, but overall I like the makeup of our system. I think we will have 1 "Barnes like" breakout candidate next year that should also boost our ranking. Most BleacherReport articles are complete garbage, but Mike Rosenbaum does good work with prospects. He put out a list that has the Sox at #11 earlier this week. He is not the best out there but worth a read. bleacherreport.com/articles/1496912-power-ranking-all-30-mlb-farm-systems-pre-spring-training-camp-edition?search_query=ranking%20farm%20systems |
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 29, 2013 11:53:17 GMT -5
I always like Sickels' because of the way he ranks players (Letter grade) rather than just a list. For example, our own system see's a significant drop-off from #1 to #s 2&3 and another drop-off from #3-#4, etc. But, a casual fan will come see the list and say Bogaerts is better than Barnes who is better than Bradley, etc. Without knowing that Barnes/Bradley are very close in prospect status, but are a clear step behind Bogaerts. See how confusing this is?
That long, drawn-out rant aside, I'm surprised Sickels' doesn't rank his teams in a similar fashion. Because, frankly #9 doesn't mean anything to me. Are we a B+ system and #10 is a B-? Or are we just the most solid of a large group of B systems?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 29, 2013 12:00:54 GMT -5
I always like Sickels' because of the way he ranks players (Letter grade) rather than just a list. For example, our own system see's a significant drop-off from #1 to #s 2&3 and another drop-off from #3-#4, etc. But, a casual fan will come see the list and say Bogaerts is better than Barnes who is better than Bradley, etc. Without knowing that Barnes/Bradley are very close in prospect status, but are a clear step behind Bogaerts. See how confusing this is?  |
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jan 29, 2013 12:06:16 GMT -5
DLR is not by definition a prospect, and not factored into Sickles list. Although these lists are subjective, and you shouldn't be upset if your team is down a couple of spots, I think they are a very entertaining read. The Sox have been climbing these lists over the last year and a half. I would much rather see a list of young players under control for next 4+ years. For example, Nationals don't have a top farm system because Stratsburg and Harper graduated, but they have do have a bright future that is not represented on the list. I like that we have talent that projects as major leaguers, but we are missing all star talent once you take out Bogaerts. I would of liked to see a trade for Myers or Bauer, but overall I like the makeup of our system. I think we will have 1 "Barnes like" breakout candidate next year that should also boost our ranking. Most BleacherReport articles are complete garbage, but Mike Rosenbaum does good work with prospects. He put out a list that has the Sox at #11 earlier this week. He is not the best out there but worth a read. bleacherreport.com/articles/1496912-power-ranking-all-30-mlb-farm-systems-pre-spring-training-camp-edition?search_query=ranking%20farm%20systemsHe put the Sox at #8. |
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 29, 2013 14:27:18 GMT -5
I always like Sickels' because of the way he ranks players (Letter grade) rather than just a list. For example, our own system see's a significant drop-off from #1 to #s 2&3 and another drop-off from #3-#4, etc. But, a casual fan will come see the list and say Bogaerts is better than Barnes who is better than Bradley, etc. Without knowing that Barnes/Bradley are very close in prospect status, but are a clear step behind Bogaerts. See how confusing this is? Damn you for ruining my half-thought-out point. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 30, 2013 11:05:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jan 30, 2013 11:29:31 GMT -5
I'd assume this would mean he evolves into an A-Rod type SS that can play there and play well in his early years, and the bat continues to climb into elite status. But for anyone that has seen him play, how likely is it that Xander could become that good? #1 prospect in the game potential is even higher that my best hopes, and I'm a rose-colored glasses guy with him already. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2013 12:30:54 GMT -5
An "A-Rod type shortstop" isn't really a thing. There's one A-Rod type shortstop, and at Xander's age, he was already one of the best players in the major leagues.
On the other hand, Evan Longoria was once BA's #2 prospect, and it's not too hard to imagine Bogaerts getting to a point where he has very similar projections towards the end of his minor league career.
|
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jan 30, 2013 12:54:54 GMT -5
My meaning should have been clearer, I meant an "A-Rod type SS" as a player who some thought was too big for the position but whose skills allowed them to play there and succeed in the majors. Then the bat progressing was a separate piece and was not being compared to early A-Rod.
I guess I'll rephrase my question to those who have seen him play, is his ceiling really as high as being the #1 prospect in the game?
|
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Jan 30, 2013 13:45:52 GMT -5
How about this. Sickels had Xander as his 4th best hitting prospect on his Preliminary Top 50 Hitting Prospects list posted in October. Only Profar, Myers, and Taveras are above him. Xander is one of 8 players total to whom Sickels gave an A rating and of those 8, Jose Fernandez of the Marlins, who he describes as "borderline A-" is the only other who is unlikely to graduate this year. Sickels isn't going out on a limb by picking Xander as the #1 prospect after this year. He's just expecting him not to regress. |
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,755
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jan 30, 2013 14:38:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by feez732 on Jan 30, 2013 16:15:55 GMT -5
He says "How about Xander at 1." He's putting the idea out there, not making a claim one way or the other. As honkbal said, he's the best ranked player this year who probably isn't going to graduate. Of the remaining players, if you expected them to be a better prospect than Xander at the end of 2013, then why in the world would you rank them behind him this year? The title of leading candidate for next year's top prospect really just defaults to him, but that doesn't say anything about the odds that he actually is the top prospect. |
|
|
