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 grandsalami on Feb 4, 2013 11:16:41 GMT -5
can someone summarize what Keith Law wrote in regards to the sox (for those that dont have insider?)
People are saying Keith ranked us 17th, which is worse then the yankees. How the F*** does that make any sense?
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Feb 4, 2013 11:24:11 GMT -5
Here is a quick synopsis...
Thinks Bogaerts can stay at shortstop, Jackie Bradley Jr. shows good plate discipline...Matt Barnes and Henry Owens posting very strong full-season debuts.... System shortfall is big league ready talent.
Rankings of teams above, including Yankees, Orioles, Mets and Marlins, are certainly very questionable. Appears he is placing more weight on major league ready talent, but I don't see where any of those teams have any more talent or depth at the higher levels.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 4, 2013 11:29:13 GMT -5
I do not think Keith Law is good. In fact, I think he is pretty terrible.
He also has the Marlins at 16, which IMO, is far too low.
He has the Yankees at 10 because "It's a top-heavy system, but the group of position players who started in low Class A Charleston last year, some of whom finished in high-A Tampa, could produce as many as three above-average or better regulars plus several other guys who'll have big league value."
The reason the Red Sox were at 17? "The system's real shortage is in big league ready talent, with right-hander Allen Webster probably the closest."
The Red Sox have better top end talent, and that talent is closer to the big leagues.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Feb 4, 2013 12:22:27 GMT -5
Yeah that's a pretty crappy ranking and Law seems to be somewhat of an outlier... I can see liking the Met's system, because of the three Gems (Wheeler, D'Arnaud, Syndergaard) , but the Yankees system seems the opposite of top heavy. Thier top level prospects are either stalled (Benaulos,Betances) or not really even impact (Romine).
I'll take faith in the fact that just about every other prospect pundit out there has the sox better then Law.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 4, 2013 13:00:31 GMT -5
By top level he means players with a high upside, not players in a high level of the minors. Mason Williams, Gary Sanchez, Tyler Austin, and Slade Heathcott all fit that description, particularly the first two.
Betances isn't even a prospect anymore, is he? WIthout having read, I'm guessing he isn't a factor in Law's ranking.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Feb 4, 2013 13:19:38 GMT -5
Are we seriously still doing the "how did they rank us compared to the Yankees!" thing? In 2013?
I don't follow other systems as closely as I used to so I'm not really in a position to agree or disagree, but I don't think it's controversial to say we don't have a lot of big-league ready talent with upside.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 4, 2013 13:58:33 GMT -5
By top level he means players with a high upside, not players in a high level of the minors. Mason Williams, Gary Sanchez, Tyler Austin, and Slade Heathcott all fit that description, particularly the first two. Betances isn't even a prospect anymore, is he? WIthout having read, I'm guessing he isn't a factor in Law's ranking. My problem is that he bashes the red sox for lack of "Big League ready talent." He does not seem to care that the Yankees players are farther away from the majors than the Red Sox top players.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 4, 2013 14:01:45 GMT -5
Are we seriously still doing the "how did they rank us compared to the Yankees!" thing? In 2013? That's not the point really. The point is more that Keith Law's rankings seem flawed, at least compared to what I've read of prospects.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 4, 2013 14:02:14 GMT -5
He is a well known backer of Mason Williams in particular so that shouldn't be a surprise. The "concensus" among other prospect gurus has the Red Sox in the top12/11 or even higher so its not that big a deal. I wouldn't get too worked up about his list.
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 13,980
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 4, 2013 14:20:51 GMT -5
Relax everyone. If rankings didn't vary, even greatly at times, then they wouldn't mean anything. Something like grading a prospect is so subjective that if individual prospect rankings don't vary by decent amounts then the lists as a whole are probably crap. They’d just be people just regurgitating the same stuff without having their own opinion. What good are they in that case?
Focus less on where he ranks them in comparison to other teams and what he says. Don’t over rate the system just because you know who all the players are and “what they could be”. If you knew the other systems just as well then you could have a better argument, but most likely you don’t. The Sox system has a lot of depth that are still at least a year or 2 away, which means there is a lot of room for bust potential. De La Rosa can’t be counted so there isn’t much help for 2013. In Law’s opinion that’s a huge knock. There’s also only one high impact player (Bogaerts) in most people’s opinions. We love Barnes, Bradley, Brentz and Owens as Sox fans, but right now people look at those guys like this:
Barnes – no 3 – 5 starter
Bradley – centerfielder who can get on base and play good defense, but not an all-star level player. Solid regular.
Brentz – high bust potential. 4th Outfielder likely outcome
Owens - 2-4 years away. Way too raw; hasn’t put up great numbers in A ball let alone any where else.
The system is as exciting as it’s been in a lot of years, especially with a high flight talent like Bogaerts in the system. If the guys who took steps forward last year, continue that progress this year, then you’ll have a host of guys knocking on the door and probably brighter outlooks for a lot of the guys. The system will be higher ranked by most. Yes, some already have them in the top 10, but in a weird way, those opinions mean more when other people don’t.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 4, 2013 14:24:12 GMT -5
The Sox system has a lot of depth that are still at least a year or 2 away, which means there is a lot of room for bust potential. That quote is the issue though, He uses that critera to knock the sox system, but uses the same one in regards to teams like the yankees being ranked so high. He is not fair across the board w/ this
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 4, 2013 14:31:50 GMT -5
To be fair, he's limited to basically a sentence or two for each team, and it's impossible to include nuanced analysis in that format. He probably looks at the Red Sox system and sees both an absence of high-ceiling talent other than Bogaerts and an absence of major-league-ready talent, both of which are arguably true.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Feb 4, 2013 14:36:24 GMT -5
We're all hating on this list and KL, but we loved him when he was one of the first to say Bogaerts should stick at SS.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 4, 2013 14:47:57 GMT -5
To be fair, he's limited to basically a sentence or two for each team, and it's impossible to include nuanced analysis in that format. He probably looks at the Red Sox system and sees both an absence of high-ceiling talent other than Bogaerts and an absence of major-league-ready talent, both of which are arguably true. posted on SOSH thats why it does not make sense, When our top prospects are more major leauge ready then the yankees, yet they are praised for it?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 4, 2013 15:22:17 GMT -5
Does Law praise the Yankees for having MLB-ready prospects? I don't he does-- he calls it a "top-heavy" system, but I think he means that they have a few very good prospects and not a lot of depth (James touched on this above). I don't think he discusses the MLB-readiness of the Yankees' system at all (again, due to the inability to include thorough analysis in a short blurb), and if asked, he'd probably agree that it's not a system with many MLB-ready prospects.
However, the Yankees probably do have better high-ceiling talent than the Red Sox (other than Bogaerts), especially when you look at the hi-A and AA levels. Bradley, Barnes, and Webster are great prospects, but they probably don't have the perennial all-star ceilings that a Williams or Heathcott have. The high-ceiling talent Boston does have is mostly confined at the lower levels of the minors and have a much more limited track record (Owens, Swihart, Margot, etc).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 4, 2013 15:29:16 GMT -5
Keep in mind I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I disagree with Law and think he's undervaluing both the solid upper tier of the system (especially Bradley, who I think is a lock to be an above-average CF but Law (if I remember correctly) has called a JAG in the past) and the depth in the system (including perennial breakout candidates like Swihart, Owens, and even Jacobs or Vinicio).
But Law contributes one perspective that we shouldn't dismiss out of hand so quickly. When you're focused so much on a particular team's prospects, there tends to develop an echo chamber effect where you to overrate your own prospects, and a little perspective always helps.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Feb 4, 2013 15:32:54 GMT -5
Not to mention that the sox do have some Major League ready guys, who by a technicality aren't considered prospects. I know for the purpose of Law's article guys like DLR, Lavarnway, Iglesias(iffy if he's considered), Middlebrooks etc. I know Org's have prospects graduating all the time and they can't be counted, but when you say "Major League ready prospects" these guys are just a squeak away from still being considered prospects. I mean Machado is mentioned as losing prospect status as something you can't fault Baltimore's system for, yet it obviously effects their ranking and that's just one prospect.
I guess my point is, it's not like the system isn't producing those types of guys, with more depth in the pipeline. Which in turn makes for a balanced and deep Org. not a bottom heavy org like Law is implying.
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 13,980
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 4, 2013 16:04:23 GMT -5
The problem is you are not understanding that there is no set formula for ranking a prospect let a lone a system of prospects. Also as pointed out, you are taking one sentence of entertainment as his full reasoning for each system.
He highlighted the Yankees being top heavy as a plus. He didn't get into all the other factors, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
No where did he say "you can't fault Baltimore for graduating Machado", he said "they'd rank higher had he not graduated". Those two things aren't even in the same universe.
None of the comments is the sole reason why a system is ranked where it is so it shouldn't be read as such.
As far as the Red Sox go, the players "developed" in the last few YEARS are WMB, Lavarnway, Iglesias, Kalish, Doubront and Bard. There are SERIOUS questions about 4 of those guys being able to even contribute much of anything. Doubront is looked at as a 5th starter (although i see potential for a lot more) and that leaves WMB. WMB is my binky and even i know he's anything but a proven high level contributor on the major league level. He's still got a lot to prove. The system has had a prolonged dry spell, or close to it, since about 2007/2008.
By the way, I hate Keith Law so this is by no means a defense of him. Just don't look into the quotes the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Feb 4, 2013 16:08:59 GMT -5
The good news is that a couple down years should refill the top tier prospects, along with the continued development of the solid core already in place. Well, that and Marrero & Bogey exploding this year.....
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 4, 2013 16:22:10 GMT -5
Keep in mind I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I disagree with Law and think he's undervaluing both the solid upper tier of the system (especially Bradley, who I think is a lock to be an above-average CF but Law (if I remember correctly) has called a JAG in the past) and the depth in the system (including perennial breakout candidates like Swihart, Owens, and even Jacobs or Vinicio). But Law contributes one perspective that we shouldn't dismiss out of hand so quickly. When you're focused so much on a particular team's prospects, there tends to develop an echo chamber effect where you to overrate your own prospects, and a little perspective always helps. I agree dissenting voices are usually useful. I just think Keith Law is not very good. First, his job seems to be ESPN prospect expert, draft expert, and sabermetric expert. I find that he fails at all three. ESPN has both Mel Kiper and Todd McShay who are devoted to covering just the NFL draft, which has just 253 picks. The MLB has many many many more draft picks. There are also all of the numerous international players. Then there are all of the levels of every team's farm system, which he is responsible for following. Then he has to spend his time using stats and scouting to analyse MLB players. I guess my overall point is the KL is more a jack-of -all trades, rather than an actual prospect expert (unlike the folks at BA, BP's prospect people, Sickles, or the folks who write here). ESPN should hire someone who is devoted solely to covering prospects or not present KL's perfunctory analysis as an actual expert opinion.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Feb 4, 2013 16:40:56 GMT -5
ESPN has both Mel Kiper and Todd McShay who are devoted to covering just the NFL draft, which has just 253 picks. The MLB has many many many more draft picks. There are also all of the numerous international players. Then there are all of the levels of every team's farm system, which he is responsible for following. There's also a lot more interest in the NFL and the NFL draft process hence the combine being televised and the players play on their NFL teams at least a little usually during their first year. In Baseball there's a lot less interest even though the draft has been televised now for what three or four years now? Of all the players drafted or sign via international free agency in the calendar year by us how many will make their MLB debut? Two or three?
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Feb 4, 2013 17:51:35 GMT -5
I guess I am in the minority here, but I like KL. I think he has a few too many things to write about, and things like rankings this time of year are just filler material because there isn't much else to write about. So I don't take these lists very seriously.
I also am not very knowledgeable about other team's minor leagues, and won't compare his ratings of the Sox to other teams, except generally, as I have done below with St. Louis.
That said, I think his rating is far more realistic than those of some others who have ranked the Sox higher. I think the Sox overall have quite a mediocre minor league system right now, with very few players who ever will be in the majors, and only a couple who might be stars. As it has turned out the Sox have drafted very poorly for several years, and many players who seemed to have major league potential when drafted have not developed in the system. If you look at some of the very best systems, like St. Louis, which generally has not had any better drafting positions than the Sox, you see huge differences in quality, both in drafting and in development.
On top of that, some of the best prospects were traded away in deals that did not work very well.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 4, 2013 18:03:50 GMT -5
I guess I am in the minority here, but I like KL. I think he has a few too many things to write about, and things like rankings this time of year are just filler material because there isn't much else to write about. So I don't take these lists very seriously. I also am not very knowledgeable about other team's minor leagues, and won't compare his ratings of the Sox to other teams, except generally, as I have done below with St. Louis. That said, I think his rating is far more realistic than those of some others who have ranked the Sox higher. I think the Sox overall have quite a mediocre minor league system right now, with very few players who ever will be in the majors, and only a couple who might be stars. As it has turned out the Sox have drafted very poorly for several years, and many players who seemed to have major league potential when drafted have not developed in the system. If you look at some of the very best systems, like St. Louis, which generally has not had any better drafting positions than the Sox, you see huge differences in quality, both in drafting and in development. On top of that, some of the best prospects were traded away in deals that did not work very well. you cant be serious with that. we have more players in the top 100 and a better farm system then we had 2 years ago IMO
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Feb 4, 2013 18:28:59 GMT -5
That the Sox have a better system than two years ago is true, but it still is not that great. Recently I went through the stats of all the players in the system. It was not encouraging. There are a few who seem to have quite a bit of promise, but so did Lars Anderson at the same point of development, and that is just one example. The flame-out rate at AA or AAA of prospects we ranked fairly highly has been very high.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 4, 2013 18:55:42 GMT -5
3 players in the top 40, 1 who is elite. The system is not bad and definitely is not quite mediocre.
|
|
|