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 pedroelgrande on Jan 29, 2013 21:54:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Jan 29, 2013 22:21:57 GMT -5
96 - Jose Iglesias, SS (BOS)
94 - Henry Owens, LHP (BOS)
Mildly surprising. I think I would've had them in the 100-150 range somewhere though.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 29, 2013 22:24:33 GMT -5
Is this the most prospects we have had in the top 100 in a while?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 22:26:01 GMT -5
surprised that iglesias and owens made it. i think owens is the better of the 2. im surprised though that brentz went from #70 last year to off the list. brentz had a better year than iggy, so i dont know how that happened. its encouraging that the sox have 6 guys in the top 100. im also kinda surprised that cecchini didnt make it, but he may some day...
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 29, 2013 22:29:54 GMT -5
Among center fielders, he has Bradley ahead of Almora, which is cool. I suppose part of the reason is because Bradley's downside is so high. If I recall, Mayo had been pretty high on Brentz heading into 2012. He was at 70 in this list, which looks like it was made at the end of last season. mlb.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2012/ |
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 30, 2013 0:05:05 GMT -5
Not that I think Lindor (#14 on the list) is a bad prospect, but objectively I'd rather have Bogaerts (#20).
|
|
|
|
Post by borisman on Jan 30, 2013 7:39:05 GMT -5
I don't know about Billy Hamilton at 11. I'm just not a believer he'll be an impact player. His speed is an 80 or whatever but he'll need to get on base A LOT. He has "0" power right now. That is a big reason why I don't think he should be no.11.
Also, Yelich was available when the Sox picked Vitek. I liked Yelich. Not to beat a dead horse or anything. Carry on.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 30, 2013 8:18:16 GMT -5
OK, here's an odd thing: they have Bogaerts as a 3/5 (present/future) grade for power, and a 4/6 for defense. That's gotta be the first place I've seen that rates Xander's defense above his power in both present and future grades ... in fact, his power is his lowest grade. Does that make sense to anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 30, 2013 8:36:13 GMT -5
OK, here's an odd thing: they have Bogaerts as a 3/5 (present/future) grade for power, and a 4/6 for defense. That's gotta be the first place I've seen that rates Xander's defense above his power in both present and future grades ... in fact, his power is his lowest grade. Does that make sense to anyone? And thus, why I find it hard to take MLB.com's prospect coverage seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by jioh on Jan 30, 2013 9:42:05 GMT -5
OK, here's an odd thing: they have Bogaerts as a 3/5 (present/future) grade for power, and a 4/6 for defense. That's gotta be the first place I've seen that rates Xander's defense above his power in both present and future grades ... in fact, his power is his lowest grade. Does that make sense to anyone? It's not just that they rate his D as better than his O; it's that they rate his present power as "3", "below average," the same score they give to greyhound Billy Hamilton. We need lots of people writing to Mayo about this. I've started. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Pereira on Jan 30, 2013 9:47:19 GMT -5
Iglesias cracking the list is sheer blasphemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 30, 2013 9:59:23 GMT -5
Iglesias cracking the list is sheer blasphemy. Not really. He might be the best defensive shortstop alive (with apologies to Brendan Ryan). Everyone has their ranking criteria. Iglesias has less of a chance to be a Hall of Fame-level superstar than most of the guys on the list, but he's probably already a borderline second division starter and he's still only heading into his age-23 season. With his defense, what does he have to hit to be an ok (1-2 win) regular? Like .250/.300/.320? There's a lot that I disagree with Mayo on, but him rating Iglesias is totally defensible (no pun intended). |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 30, 2013 10:58:09 GMT -5
OK, here's an odd thing: they have Bogaerts as a 3/5 (present/future) grade for power, and a 4/6 for defense. That's gotta be the first place I've seen that rates Xander's defense above his power in both present and future grades ... in fact, his power is his lowest grade. Does that make sense to anyone? It's not just that they rate his D as better than his O; it's that they rate his present power as "3", "below average," the same score they give to greyhound Billy Hamilton. This. I wonder if they copy-pasted another profile as a template and forgot to change some grades. The power is the only thing that sticks out at me as REALLY off, but the write-up seems to have him pegged about right. |
|
|
|
Post by lasershow07 on Jan 30, 2013 11:33:54 GMT -5
They also gave Jackie Bradley 3 and 5 for present and future power and this is the first list I've seen that has Iglesias' D rated as a 7 as opposed to an 8. Hard to take exception with someone not wanting to give out a best of the best grade, but I'll do it anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP Kitson on Jan 30, 2013 12:07:30 GMT -5
I like to check out the Mayo's list for a good laugh. Watching Mayo and Callis during the draft is the best though. All the other commentators are waiting for Mayo to stop talking, so they can actually listen to what Callis has to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jan 30, 2013 17:06:07 GMT -5
Mayo changed the grade on Bogaerts' power to 4/5, which is still light IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 30, 2013 18:26:53 GMT -5
Mayo changed the grade on Bogaerts' power to 4/5, which is still light IMO. agreed....I don't think a 5/7 grade would be unreasonable....5/6 at the very least. I mean he did slug over 500 in the Carolina league as a 19 yr old. I don't know what screams fringe average about that. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 30, 2013 20:19:25 GMT -5
Mayo changed the grade on Bogaerts' power to 4/5, which is still light IMO. Do they not get that the problem wasn't his power rating so much as the fact that they project his defense to be the better tool? I mean we don't even know where he's going to play, are they projecting him as a 60 shortstop? And if so they should re-title the feature "Bury the Hammer's Wet Dreams" |
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 30, 2013 20:29:02 GMT -5
Yeah, that's still light. That's the same grade as Profar, for instance, and while, sure, Profar's the better prospect, I don't think too many people would consider their present or future power grades to be the same.
But, you know, whatever. Can't take these things too seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Jan 30, 2013 21:26:58 GMT -5
Mayo changed the grade on Bogaerts' power to 4/5, which is still light IMO. Do they not get that the problem wasn't his power rating so much as the fact that they project his defense to be the better tool? I mean we don't even know where he's going to play, are they projecting him as a 60 shortstop? And if so they should re-title the feature "Bury the Hammer's Wet Dreams" touche good sir. The first thing I found odd was Owens and Iglesias both being in the top 100. I of course won't complain but usually the people who rank Owens the highest are the ones who focus on potential ceiling and not floor which are usually the people who don't think too highly of Iglesias. Usually the people who like Iglesias are the ones that look at his decent floor which Owens doesn't have. Just seemed odd to me that both ways of measuring prospects seemed to be done here with the two extremes of each side. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 31, 2013 6:39:15 GMT -5
But, you know, whatever. Can't take these things too seriously. I agree, but as an aside, discussing something like this, even vigorously, on a prospect-themed board to me does not imply taking it too seriously. This is what we're here for. If you go to a Star Trek board they're going to be debating some mundane moment in a random episode that 99% of humanity has never seen. That's the beauty of the 21st century. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 31, 2013 8:35:51 GMT -5
Yeah, that's still light. That's the same grade as Profar, for instance, and while, sure, Profar's the better prospect, I don't think too many people would consider their present or future power grades to be the same. But, you know, whatever. Can't take these things too seriously.Well, not while they're handing out grades that are blatantly wrong, no. And really, of all the tools to whiff on, Bogaerts's power? Really? It's not like his obvious plus power hasn't been the thing driving his prospect status since day one or anything.... |
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 31, 2013 10:46:49 GMT -5
Yeah, that's still light. That's the same grade as Profar, for instance, and while, sure, Profar's the better prospect, I don't think too many people would consider their present or future power grades to be the same. But, you know, whatever. Can't take these things too seriously.Well, not while they're handing out grades that are blatantly wrong, no. And really, of all the tools to whiff on, Bogaerts's power? Really? It's not like his obvious plus power hasn't been the thing driving his prospect status since day one or anything.... Yes it really makes no sense, especially considering that the list gives away plenty of 7s and a few 8s. |
|
|
|
Post by Matt Huegel on Jan 31, 2013 11:33:09 GMT -5
Well yeah considering present 40 power translates to about 10-14 home runs, and he had 20 last year, it's just incorrect in the most basic way.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jan 31, 2013 12:45:15 GMT -5
But, you know, whatever. Can't take these things too seriously. I agree, but as an aside, discussing something like this, even vigorously, on a prospect-themed board to me does not imply taking it too seriously. This is what we're here for. If you go to a Star Trek board they're going to be debating some mundane moment in a random episode that 99% of humanity has never seen. That's the beauty of the 21st century. Ha, very true. I agree with you there (or else I wouldn't still be here lo these many years later) ... just that in this specific case, he's clearly wrong about Bogaert's power ratings, imo, but it's not that big a deal if he's off by a digit or two. he's definitely an outlier. But, at the same time, he doesn't undervalue Xander as a prospect, which now that I mention it is weird in and of itself. 20th is a solid spot for him, but he's basing it on his solid defense and hit tool and not his power? Btw, if you want a great example of taking things seriously, check out the discussion on the Wikipedia page for Star Trek Into Darkness ... 45,000 words debating whether "Into" should be capitalized or not. Fantastic. |
|
|
