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 Feb 5, 2013 12:42:22 GMT -5
If Keith Law ranked our system a lot higher would he go from bad to good? Yes. No.
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Feb 5, 2013 13:08:05 GMT -5
Yes, I understated the production of the system. The one per year average seems to be there. However, what's disappointing is that there aren't any Pedroias, or Ellsburys, at least not so far.
Another thing to think about. The Sox have been one of the top spending teams in the draft for quite a few years, but do not have results anywhere equivalent to what they have spent, relative to other teams. There are quite a few other teams that spent less, but somehow found better players in the drafts, and not just in the first round or two.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Feb 5, 2013 13:11:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 5, 2013 13:21:47 GMT -5
No. This is just another example of Keith Law putting out a piece, which, in my opinion, has numerous flaws. I also pointed out in my initial post that he has the Marlins too low and the Yankees too high (the Yankees in their storied history have many times actually had a top ten farm system, this just is not one those times). This is not necessarily etched-in-stone fact is it?.. but rather just your opinion, right? There are so many of us on this site that are so much more deserving of dimwit, spread-too-thin Klaws' big bucks! Damn the Fates! I am certainty not worthy of KL's salary. He has a very good resume, while I follow prospects as a hobby. I just do not believe that he should be touted as a prospect guru (which is what ESPN promotes him as) unless he devotes a much larger portion of his time to prospects. Let's be honest, people follow the NFL draft because in the 1980's ESPN decided to promote the NFL draft. The NFL itself was skeptical that people would watch but they played along. Now people actually watch the combine, which is hours of college kids just running and jumping. ESPN could choose to actually hire someone to devote his time to the minors, but they do not. They used to have John Sickles, but now the role is filled with Keith Law who is also supposed to cover the majors. I am entitled to take umbrage with KL's product as a paying Insider subscriber, even if I would be even less qualified to write the column myself. There are others who are qualified.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 5, 2013 13:35:34 GMT -5
We are talking about how the system stacks up against others around the league not if the Red Sox have drafted well, if you want to discuss that topic then there is the Draft thread.
To say the system is quite mediocre is ludicrous. On the strength of Xander alone it is not, top 5 according to almighty Keith Law, and then you have guys like Webster and JBJ that while are not considered "elite" are definitely close to the big leagues and I feel comfortable saying JBJ will be at least an avg big leaguer. Then there is depth at the lower levels with Cecchini, Swihart, Owens, Marrero, Vinicio, De la Cruz among other that are in the lower levels of the system that might have elite potential like Margot for example. You can say the team lacks elite level talent but lets not confuse that with the system being mediocre cause having elite level talent is a rarity not the norm.
The Red Sox have had as much success as any team developing players and yes they have hit a dry spell but you can't expect to be pumping out Lesters, Pedroias, Ellsburys, Papelbons, Youks all the time thats unattainable cause developing players is incredibly hard and its way unpredictable but even beyond those guys the Red Sox have Masterson, Rizzo, Lowrie among others who were traded once they were in the big leagues or the upper minors and are serviceable big leaguers with Rizzo having a chance to be more than that. Then there is Middlebrooks and Doubront who are still with the team and look like at the very least will be avg big leaguers but if you look at the strength of the 3rd base position around the league then Middlebrooks might be even more than that.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 5, 2013 14:14:39 GMT -5
Aside from a starting pitcher and a good-looking third baseman, I like Tazawa's showing last year a lot. A very lot. The guy's stuff is ridiculous. It's like they sent him off for TJ finishing school to give him an arsenal that would have batters crying when they left the plate. He's that good.
Those three guys, as someone else wrote up, gave the Sox' minor league system a lot to be thankful for last year. I think we can all acknowledge that.
But again, this is about Law's system for ordering teams for their current minor league mix. That's not an easy thing to do, and because it isn't, I think his absolute numerical rankings are silly at best. At worst they promote ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 5, 2013 15:52:39 GMT -5
But again, this is about Law's system for ordering teams for their current minor league mix. That's not an easy thing to do, and because it isn't, I think his absolute numerical rankings are silly at best. At worst they promote ignorance.It's worth noting that writers like Law put these lists (org ranks, top 100s, etc) together because fans demand them, not because they love these lists and think they're the best way to inform people. They're written because people respond to them (and/or demand them). Just look at this thread. It's the deadest time of the year for baseball, there's very little posting going on here, but Law gives the Sox a "bad" org ranking and the place can't help but spring into action.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 5, 2013 16:16:20 GMT -5
To say the system is quite mediocre is ludicrous. On the strength of Xander alone it is not, top 5 according to almighty Keith Law, and then you have guys like Webster and JBJ that while are not considered "elite" are definitely close to the big leagues and I feel comfortable saying JBJ will be at least an avg big leaguer. Well, you might fell comfortable doing that, but who says Law has to? It's "ludicrous" that someone has a different opinion than you on something as notoriously difficult to predict as prospects? Seriously, when did projecting these players become such an exact science? Was it immediately after Law said something mildly critical about the system?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 5, 2013 16:24:29 GMT -5
Let's be honest, people follow the NFL draft because in the 1980's ESPN decided to promote the NFL draft. The NFL itself was skeptical that people would watch but they played along. Now people actually watch the combine, which is hours of college kids just running and jumping. ESPN could choose to actually hire someone to devote his time to the minors, but they do not. They used to have John Sickles, but now the role is filled with Keith Law who is also supposed to cover the majors. People follow the NFL draft because people follow college football and because draft picks contribute immediately. Same with basketball. It's not more popular because it gets better promotion, but the inverse - it gets better promotion because it's more popular.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 5, 2013 16:32:11 GMT -5
Well, you might fell comfortable doing that, but who says Law has to? It's "ludicrous" that someone has a different opinion than you on something as notoriously difficult to predict as prospects? Seriously, when did projecting these players become such an exact science? Was it immediately after Law said something mildly critical about the system? Was it Keith Law who said the system was quite mediocre or one of the posters here? I didn't make any reference to Keith Law other than calling him almighty and referencing his ranking of Bogaerts I know my typing is pretty bad but read again what I said and check the thread again and I haven't been discussing Keith Law's rankings. My only took objection was calling the the system "quite mediocre" when its clearly not. In other words you are barking at the wrong tree. But lets say I did have objection to Law's opinion so what? because its his opinion I can't object to it? no one can criticize it? no one can disagree? Fortunately I no longer have an ESPN Insiders account so I can't read what he said or didn't say so I have refrain from talking about his rankings.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 5, 2013 16:38:17 GMT -5
Yeah sorry, I didn't read the whole thread.
And yes, you can certainly object to Law's opinion, I just don't think you can characterize it as ludicrous. But I guess you weren't doing that anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Feb 5, 2013 17:43:54 GMT -5
Well, you might fell comfortable doing that, but who says Law has to? It's "ludicrous" that someone has a different opinion than you on something as notoriously difficult to predict as prospects? Seriously, when did projecting these players become such an exact science? Was it immediately after Law said something mildly critical about the system? Was it Keith Law who said the system was quite mediocre or one of the posters here? I didn't make any reference to Keith Law other than calling him almighty and referencing his ranking of Bogaerts I know my typing is pretty bad but read again what I said and check the thread again and I haven't been discussing Keith Law's rankings. My only took objection was calling the the system "quite mediocre" when its clearly not. In other words you are barking at the wrong tree. But lets say I did have objection to Law's opinion so what? because its his opinion I can't object to it? no one can criticize it? no one can disagree? Fortunately I no longer have an ESPN Insiders account so I can't read what he said or didn't say so I have refrain from talking about his rankings. Yup Keith Law did say the system was mediocre...at least by inference. He rated the system at 17th, slightly below the midpoint. Mediocre means average. That is where he put us. Perhaps you were referring to posters who interpreted Law's rating as being essentially 'ordinary'. ....but either way the discussion was inhitiated by and centered on Law's grade. Sickels had us at 9 and Chris Mellen, still doing his work-up, sees us at 10-15. 10 is top third and 15 is, in fact, mediocre. As with all things Red Sox, time will tell whether you or the pundits are right (and I hope that you are).
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 5, 2013 18:19:59 GMT -5
I think the Sox overall have quite a mediocre minor league system right now There it is man read the thread I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 5, 2013 19:21:02 GMT -5
Here are some brief excerpts from Law, which he said in his chat today he was not opposed to as long as they included the link back to the main piece: Xander: He's not likely to become a plus defender at short, but even fringe-average defense there would make him a five-win player or more given his bat. Bradely: a potential Gold Glove defender in center who should hit for average and get on base as long as he doesn't overextend himself and try to hit for power. Webster: can repeat his delivery well, but he lacks the feel for pitching that he'll need to succeed as a starter even at Triple-A. Sox see Webster as a potential No. 2 starter. I see that ceiling, but a lot of work between here and there. Barnes: looks like a solid mid-rotation guy who'll be at least league-average, with a chance to profile better than that because of how well he locates the fastball. ADDED: Owens: has him in the 10 who just missed category. Sees little possibility for added velo on his FB (which is 88-92) and wonders if the deception he used in the low minors will be enough to carry him through the advanced levels. Finally, anyone who says Tampa's only good because they traditionally pick so high should recognize that Tampa's been picking where the Sox traditionally picked for the last 3 years; also note that St. Louis and Texas have been able to created loaded farm systems despite (or in tandem with) winning MLB records. Full Top 100 piece: insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8865998/mlb-top-100-prospects-2013-nos-1-25
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 5, 2013 20:40:41 GMT -5
There is one common denominator between St. Louis and Texas......International success.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Feb 5, 2013 21:13:14 GMT -5
I think the Sox overall have quite a mediocre minor league system right now There it is man read the thread I'm done. Well, dcri happens to agree with Law in this instance. Pedro I am so impressed with your knowledge of the international scene. You have added a great deal to the website with your reports and links. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 5, 2013 22:25:47 GMT -5
Ok I may have overreacted.
Thanks for the complement!! But really I don't wanto take credit away from guys like Ben Badler and Jason Parks who are the ones providing all the info I just keep track of it!! but thanks again at least I know someone is reading!!
Edit: added the last part.
|
|
|
Post by fdrnewdeal on Feb 5, 2013 23:19:36 GMT -5
I unlike most of the folks here, really like Law. I also think that he's being a little bearish here... but whatever.
I think it's important to note that with how well run most organizations are these days, the separation between the 5th best system and the 15th is probably a lot smaller than most of make it out to be.
Furthermore, most with the volatility inherent to minor league development, a systems "rank" is unlikely to remain constant. While I haven't followed the minors as closely this year as I have in the past, I suspect Boston isn't the only organization that features talented toolsy players like Blake Swihart or Brandon Jacobs outside of their top five. Every year, a handful of gifted players make huge leaps... and the perception of an organization's farm can vastly improve as a result. Conversely, a Julia Tehran can go from being a top ten prospect to a prospect that looks like they need a change of scenery in a hurry.
So basically, Kieth Law being really good at his job and having an opinion that runs contrary to the opinions of other really talented evaluators isn't impossible (nor unlikely). And even if he's right... a lot can change in a season.
Finally, I've got to point out to those who feel as if the front office has done a poor job drafting in recent years to consider that the organization lost a top 25 talent to a freakish medical condition. Jim Callis once said the difference between Westmoreland and Jason Heyward wasn't that huge, talent wise. Imagine how good the system would look if that kid didn't have such a run of rotten luck.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 6, 2013 0:35:25 GMT -5
Let's be honest, people follow the NFL draft because in the 1980's ESPN decided to promote the NFL draft. The NFL itself was skeptical that people would watch but they played along. Now people actually watch the combine, which is hours of college kids just running and jumping. ESPN could choose to actually hire someone to devote his time to the minors, but they do not. They used to have John Sickles, but now the role is filled with Keith Law who is also supposed to cover the majors. People follow the NFL draft because people follow college football and because draft picks contribute immediately. Same with basketball. It's not more popular because it gets better promotion, but the inverse - it gets better promotion because it's more popular. People follow the NFL draft who have no interest in college football. The history of its coverage is very interesting. It was originally held in the middle of the week in the morning. No one really paid much attention to it until ESPN (at least compared to present), looking to fill a slot, asked the NFL if they could cover it. Pete Rozelle, the commissioner, thought that draft would be boring to casual fans, but consented. 33 years later and draft coverage is huge business.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Feb 6, 2013 0:44:38 GMT -5
People follow the NFL draft because people follow college football and because draft picks contribute immediately. Same with basketball. It's not more popular because it gets better promotion, but the inverse - it gets better promotion because it's more popular. People follow the NFL draft who have no interest in college football. The history of its coverage is very interesting. It was originally held in the middle of the week in the morning. No one really paid much attention to it until ESPN (at least compared to present), looking to fill a slot, asked the NFL if they could cover it. Pete Rozelle, the commissioner, thought that draft would be boring to casual fans, but consented. 33 years later and draft coverage is huge business. I admit the NFL draft and even the combine mean more to me than the super bowl. so...yup, very true.
|
|
okin15
Veteran
Posts: 1,355
Member is Online
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 6, 2013 10:41:36 GMT -5
I think Law's comments about Bogaerts's defenes are really interesting, and there's a greater relevance when he talks about Xander staying slim. Are we in a world where guys just don't bulk up the way they used to? Remember when Nomar suddenly gained lbs and power after using Valentin's trainer over the winter? That kind of stuff isn't going to happen any more, and more guys are going to look at age 25 like they did at age 21.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 6, 2013 11:55:16 GMT -5
People follow the NFL draft who have no interest in college football. The history of its coverage is very interesting. It was originally held in the middle of the week in the morning. No one really paid much attention to it until ESPN (at least compared to present), looking to fill a slot, asked the NFL if they could cover it. Pete Rozelle, the commissioner, thought that draft would be boring to casual fans, but consented. 33 years later and draft coverage is huge business. None of this is incorrect (except the bit about people following the NFL draft having no interest in college football, an overly blanket statement that ignores completely the Tim Tebow situation among other things). But it doesn't really negate what I said. ESPN saw the NFL draft as big business because of the reasons I stated above. Of course there are people who aren't college fans who are into the draft, because they are NFL fans, and Day 1 players can generally help right away. If you casually cheer for a crummy team that needs a quarterback, and Andrew Luck and RGIII are available, that's exciting. If you cheer a good team that needs a pass rusher or cornerback, that's exciting too. Throw in the fact that college football is a big deal (particularly relative to college baseball) and it's a recipe for success. ESPN doesn't promote the NFL draft more because it prefers the NFL - it promotes it more because it's a much better return on investment. For baseball fans? I'm sure the Astros are excited about Carlos Correa and Twins fans about Byron Buxton, but for the casual fan, they're more of a theory than reality. Look, I'm as critical as anyone about ESPN's tendency toward sport promotionrather than sport news. I'd love it if they added more prospect content, and love it even more if they had better draft content. The flipside, though, is that that the best draft/amateur/prospect content comes from other providers. As baseball fans we're very lucky to have resources like Baseball America and Baseball Prospectus and Minor League Ball. Keith Law fits very well with what ESPN does best. He's a very good writer, he's knowledgeable on a number of subjects, and he's a personality. He also has a proclivity for controversy, which is another thing ESPN loves. He has no problem giving an opinion that's outside of the mainstream and being a bit of a hard-ass about it. With that said, I never get the impression that he's taking a position outside the mainstream simply to be contrarian, a la Stephen A. Smith or Skip Bayless or some of the other more frustrating ESPN talents. He watches a ton of baseball and forms his own opinions. If he thinks Matt Barnes is barely a Top 80 prospect, the fact that other people have in in the Top 40 isn't going to phase him. And that's a good thing - the prospect lists in recent years have been developing an uncomfortable amount of consistency. Of course, Law is flat-out wrong about some things (he was talking last summer about Jackie Bradley's improved plate discipline in one particularly incorrect moment), but so is Jonathan Mayo, who is wrong in a way more boring way. I often disagree with Law, but I continue reading him and taking his opinions seriously.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Feb 6, 2013 12:00:39 GMT -5
Finally, anyone who says Tampa's only good because they traditionally pick so high should recognize that Tampa's been picking where the Sox traditionally picked for the last 3 years; also note that St. Louis and Texas have been able to created loaded farm systems despite (or in tandem with) winning MLB records. Full Top 100 piece: insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8865998/mlb-top-100-prospects-2013-nos-1-25Finally, anyone who says Tampa's only good because they traditionally pick so high should recognize that Tampa has not graduated a prospect since the 2007 draft.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 6, 2013 12:08:17 GMT -5
Finally, anyone who says Tampa's only good because they traditionally pick so high should recognize that Tampa's been picking where the Sox traditionally picked for the last 3 years; also note that St. Louis and Texas have been able to created loaded farm systems despite (or in tandem with) winning MLB records. Full Top 100 piece: insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8865998/mlb-top-100-prospects-2013-nos-1-25Finally, anyone who says Tampa's only good because they traditionally pick so high should recognize that Tampa has not graduated a prospect since the 2007 draft. I'm not sure this statement means anything on its own without context. That said, they really have NOT drafted well from 2008 on, starting with the whiff on Tim Beckham.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 6, 2013 12:20:54 GMT -5
My problem with Law is that he often will be far more definitive about his opinions than the evidence (and/or his seeming exposure to the evidence) deserves. This is inevitable at a place like ESPN, where the statement "there's a pretty broad range of possible outcomes, and I'm not deeply versed in this, so I won't take a hard position on your question" would probably be considered obscene and cause for a public flogging in the company cafeteria. But it's particularly annoying when talking about prospects ...
Now, granted, writing about prospects would be REALLY boring if everyone gave the full qualifications that are deserved, and all of us who read about prospects sort of automatically insert qualifiers to opinions about it. But I really get the impression that Law forms very strong opinions on very little evidence, and it makes it hard for me to take him seriously or care what he has to say about anything. That includes "good" opinions that I want to be true and/or agree with, let alone the Crime Against Humanity of saying the Yankee system is significantly better than the Sox right now.
|
|
|