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 raftsox on Feb 6, 2013 12:40:05 GMT -5
Finally, 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. True. I am just a bit sick of the diatribe that Tampa is fantastic at developing and analyzing players and prospects. I would strongly argue that Friedman is not as good as everyone wants to think. He is good, but there are several GMs, farm directors, etc. I would prefer over him, for starters: the people in Cincinnati or Texas.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 6, 2013 12:45:57 GMT -5
That is true he's like Theo and Co. a few years back. I for one like what the Rangers do especially in Latin America.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Feb 6, 2013 13:11:58 GMT -5
I for one, don't dislike Keith Law as a columnist or even a prospect analyst. I think he's a bit of an egotistical ass from his chats and even his pod cast's. I definitely disagree with some of his rankings, but everyone has their "binkies" even ESPN writers. I think he tends to write well and I think his individual player write-ups are usually pretty well-informed, at least he's seen a lot of these players unlike some other writers out there. I think he has a man-crush on Yankees prospects from time to time, but that just my Red Sox blood coming through.
I thought his stuff on Allen Webster was pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 6, 2013 13:53:53 GMT -5
Unless I missed it, I dont think he said the Yankees system was significantly better than the Red Sox at this time. I think this is an important point because it's easy to look at the NYY being ranked 10th and the Sox 17th and thinking that significant. It's only signifcant if you are talking about even spacing between numbers. For all we know, in his opinion the difference between 10th and 17th is rather small. He obviously thinks the Yankees system is better or he wouldn't have ranked them higher, but we have no clue to what degree.
I think it's important to keep that in perspective when looking at these lists.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 6, 2013 14:03:17 GMT -5
There is one common denominator between St. Louis and Texas......International success. Completely agree. I was very disappointed last year, too, when they knew the new rules were coming and didn't throw down for Cespedes, Soler or a few others. Now the way the CBA and new Intl rules are set up I think it hurts the kids in these countries even more, and hamstring teams that want to invest in international scouting.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 6, 2013 14:06:35 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. It's not all about graduation or hoarding prospects, though. It's also about the currency value in trades these guys provide.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Feb 6, 2013 15:51:59 GMT -5
Finally, 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. It's not all about graduation or hoarding prospects, though. It's also about the currency value in trades these guys provide. Of the players drafted during those years by Tampa, how many have they traded and what value has been derived for Tampa? * What are you trying to say?
|
|
|
Post by gatortough on Feb 6, 2013 17:30:49 GMT -5
One of the most interesting things I took from the Law rankings was the placement of Webster over Barnes. Keith seems to be in the minority on that account (just as he is in the organizational rankings) but he had this to say in his chat yesterday: Chris (Boston) Is Allen Webster ahead of Matt Barnes simply because he is closer to major league ready?
Klaw (3:25 PM) Webster has way better stuff, is a better athlete, and has a better delivery. Barnes has much better present command. espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/46997/mlb-insider-keith-lawI haven't heard this take from anyone else, but it will be interesting to see in hindsight who got it right. Also this brings to mind his podcast with Speier a while back after the Punto Trade when he said that he thought RDLR was superior to Webster as a prospect. Here's hoping he's off on Barnes and right on the other two. (apologies if this part of the chat was already posted but I haven't seen it)
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Feb 6, 2013 17:50:04 GMT -5
One of the most interesting things I took from the Law rankings was the placement of Webster over Barnes. Keith seems to be in the minority on that account (just as he is in the organizational rankings) but he had this to say in his chat yesterday: Chris (Boston) Is Allen Webster ahead of Matt Barnes simply because he is closer to major league ready?
Klaw (3:25 PM) Webster has way better stuff, is a better athlete, and has a better delivery. Barnes has much better present command. espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/46997/mlb-insider-keith-lawI haven't heard this take from anyone else, but it will be interesting to see in hindsight who got it right. Also this brings to mind his podcast with Speier a while back after the Punto Trade when he said that he thought RDLR was superior to Webster as a prospect. Here's hoping he's off on Barnes and right on the other two. (apologies if this part of the chat was already posted but I haven't seen it) Personally I like Barnes' delivery much better than Webster's. As you can on the clips below, Webster's delivery is a little stiff and rigid. Barnes' is much looser and more athletic. Not saying I'm the expert, but just my opinion. I like to hear Mellens opinion on this. Webster: Barnes:
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 6, 2013 17:57:02 GMT -5
I can't comment on their mechanics, but I think it's fair to say that Webster has much better movement on his pitches and better feel for his secondary stuff, while Barnes has much better command of the fastball.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 6, 2013 18:32:51 GMT -5
Might as well repeat what I've said before, a few times now. Allan Webster has three pitches that grade out as average to plus, and a potential fourth. His fastball comes in at anywhere from 93-97 mph with heavy sink, apparently a very difficult pitch to do anything with. Should he gain complete control of that, to go along with a slider and a very good change-up he will be near the top of the heap of the Sox pitching resources. Pitchers with that assortment of stuff don't come along very often. Add in the fact that he has maybe three years of wear and tear on the arm and, yeah, he looks pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 7, 2013 9:47:17 GMT -5
Here's Keith Law's Red Sox top 10:
1. Xander Bogaerts 2. Jackie Bradley 3. Allen Webster 4. Matt Barnes 5. Henry Owens 6. Deven Marrero 7. Blake Swihart 8. Garin Cecchini 9. Drake Britton 10. Brian Johnson Sleepers: Cody Kukuk, Manny Margot, Mike Augliera
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Feb 7, 2013 13:47:03 GMT -5
Here's Keith Law's Red Sox top 10: 1. Xander Bogaerts 2. Jackie Bradley 3. Allen Webster 4. Matt Barnes 5. Henry Owens 6. Deven Marrero 7. Blake Swihart 8. Garin Cecchini 9. Drake Britton 10. Brian Johnson Sleepers: Cody Kukuk, Manny Margot, Mike Augliera Anybody have an update on Johnson's physical recovery? I hope this kid make a complete recovery. Very scary stuff!
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 7, 2013 14:02:27 GMT -5
Good to see Johnson in the top-10, I'm high on him. And Keith Law really knows what he's talking about.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Feb 7, 2013 16:49:39 GMT -5
I saw Marrero play a few times at Lowell last year and I was kinda disappointed that he didn't produce more in a short season league. He obviously fell in the draft for a number of reasons. I hope he pans out as the Red Sox can't afford to keep missing on high draft picks. Same for Johnson. I hope he recovers from his 2012 injury and justifies being picked so high.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Feb 7, 2013 20:23:02 GMT -5
[quote author=adiospaydro2005 board=general thread=463 post=10581 time=1360273779 I saw Marrero play a few times at Lowell last year and I was kinda disappointed that he didn't produce more in a short season league. He obviously fell in the draft for a number of reasons. I hope he pans out as the Red Sox can't afford to keep missing on high draft picks. Same for Johnson. I hope he recovers from his 2012 injury and justifies being picked so high. [/quote]
Well, I did not see him play but based on his stats and the lack of enthusiastic clamor here, I was very surprised to see him ranked so high by Klaw. I hope that endorsement has a firm basis.
|
|
|
Post by flsoxman44 on Feb 8, 2013 15:54:27 GMT -5
I hate KL.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 9, 2013 8:57:28 GMT -5
Law on Barnes ( link): While there are a number of talent evaluators and publications that have suggested that right-hander Matt Barnes projects as no worse than a likely mid-rotation (No. 3 or No. 4) starter with the ceiling of a No. 2, Law suggested that the 2011 first-rounder out of the University of Connecticut lacks the dominant secondary offerings — at least at this point of his career — to suggest a pitcher with that kind of ceiling.
“I don’t think that’s a reasonable evaluation of where Barnes is today. I give him credit for making a lot of progress out of school. His junior year at UConn was a little bit disappointing and allowed the Red Sox to get him where they did. He could have gone top 10, at least 15, going into his spring,” said Law. “The big thing with Barnes, I know the strikeout numbers were great, but he was doing a lot of it just with great fastball command — which is awesome. You love to see that. But it’s not like he has knockout stuff. And I think as he continues to move up the ladder, unless one of those pitches takes a big leap forward, like suddenly the curveball adds a grade or two on the 20-80 scale, he’s probably going to be relying on that fastball command to continue to miss bats, and that’s harder and harder to do as you continue to move up the ladder. …
“That’s not typically how you tend to pitch in the top two spots in the rotation. Most guys who pitch up there have either a clear swing-and-miss pitch or something that generates a ton of ground balls. Barnes, for me, doesn’t have any of that. And I will say also, I downgraded him a little bit because it’s not a great delivery. He’s got the size, and he actually does a great job of repeating the delivery, but it’s not the cleanest you’re going to come across. That does give him, I think, a slightly higher risk of injury than some of the pitchers that I have graded higher than him.”
|
|
|
Post by dewey1972 on Feb 9, 2013 13:56:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 10, 2013 10:56:09 GMT -5
I think a lot of people assume Klaw doesn't see these guys and draw his own conclusions and that's certainly not the case. He goes and watches a lit of minor league games. None of these writers see everyone and none of them see them enough to draw proper conclusions. It's impossible to do on that wide a scale.
|
|
|
Post by jioh on Feb 10, 2013 13:16:48 GMT -5
I think a lot of people assume Klaw doesn't see these guys and draw his own conclusions and that's certainly not the case. He goes and watches a lit of minor league games. None of these writers see everyone and none of them see them enough to draw proper conclusions. It's impossible to do on that wide a scale. Yes, some of you might remember I saw Law at a Carolina Mudcats-Salem Red Sox game in which he saw Bogaerts hit a HR, as well as Bradley, Shaw, and others. I forget who pitched; might have been Workman.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Feb 10, 2013 15:16:46 GMT -5
And I've seen Law in Portland and Lowell. I actually think he's a smart guy and does as good a job as most when it comes to player evaluations. Just like any evaluator he has his own style. He tends to be more critical of players that don't take enough walks than the average evaluator (see Reddick, Brentz, etc), but I usual agree with him in that regard. He comes off as a prick and that turns a lot of people off, but if you ignore that stuff there is some good info in his reports.
He is definitely limited by the scale of his work. For instance, I would definitely take this sites reports on Red Sox prospects over Law's. There is certainly something to be said for having a decent sample size of looks at each prospect from a variety of different people.
As for this particular list - I think Law just misses the mark on this ranking. He appears to knock the Sox system down a peg for not having enough major league talent, but all four of the top guys will be starting in AA or higher this year. Not to mention guys like Brentz, Iglesias, Wilson, Britton, Workman, Ranaudo, and Holt. I actually think the Sox have as much depth in AA/AAA as any point I can remember in recent history. And remember, when a player starts a season he has usually made his MLB debut later that year or by the beginning of the following year. Look at the track record:
Papelbon started 2005 in AA and made his debut in July of that year. Lester started 2005 in AA and made his debut in June of the following year. Anibal Sanchez started 2006 in AA and made his debut the same year (with Florida). Hanley Ramirez - same as Sanchez. Ellsbury started 2007 in Portland and debuted by June of that year. Buchholz also started 2007 in Portland and debuted by August. For Masterson, the first year he started in AA was 2008 and he was in the bigs by April 24. Reddick started 2009 in AA and was up by July 31. Kalish did the exact same thing the following year.
The list goes on. The bottom line: If you have four top 100 prospects starting in AA then there isn't a shortfall in near major league ready talent.
On top of that, several of the Red Sox "next wave" are guys that could presumably move very quickly. Case and point is Marrero being invited to big league camp.
I hate always directly comparing the Red Sox the Yankees, but it is any easy comparison to make to show the error in the Sox ranking. Each team had four top 100 prospects. The Sox had the 5th, 40th, 63rd and 79th prospects. The Yankees had the 18th, 35th, 52nd, and 56th prospect. Hard to say based purely on rankings that the Red Sox don't have an edge there with the emphasis on premium talent (the difference between prospects as you go further down the list tends to be less significant).
On top of that Law says this about the Yankees system: "The Yankees' system is top-heavy, with several elite prospects but not a ton of depth"
While he says this about the Sox system: "Their system also has some intriguing second-tier prospects outside their top 10"
Again, I actually really like Law and his evaluations are usually very strong. When you started again into "ranking" articles there will always be disagreement, but I just really think he missed on this one and by a pretty decent margin.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 10, 2013 15:44:02 GMT -5
There is where the ranking prospects and the overall systems becomes an art versus a science. I think what your analysis tells us is the difference between where the Yankees rank and where the Red Sox rank isn't that big.
I think system ranks also come down to the simple question, would you trade one system for the other? In KLaws mind, he wouldn't trade all the players in the Yankees system for all the players in the Sox system. It's as simple as that. Sure Bogarts is the highest ranked out of the 8 prospects, by far, but they have 2 prospects ahead of our 2nd and 4 prospects ahead of our 3rd. KLaw is also fairly low on our 3rd guy (Barnes) when you read his write up. Barnes is pushed higher becasue he has a high propbability of being a big leaguer, but he's thrust down because in KLaws mind he has a lower ceiling. The Yankees guys are pushed up because in KLaws mind they have a higher ceiling. They are conversly held back despite the high ceiling by having a lower likelihood of reaching it. This is where the art form comes into play. KLaw would clearly rather have the organization that has more potential superstars with the higher flame out rate than the low ceiling guys. Keep in mind, he thinks JBjr has a pretty low ceiling as far as top prospects go as well, just a high likelihood of reaching it.
The reason Henry Owens is ranked so highly by him is because he loves his potential to be a top tier starter, but he's outside the top 100 becasue his results have been somewhat poor at lower levels and his bust potential is very high.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Feb 10, 2013 16:32:16 GMT -5
The difference between how he values ceiling vs. floor is presumably incorporated into how he ranks individual players. I just really don't see an argument for the Yankees system over the Sox system given Law's evaluation of the players. You don't have to think Law is too low on Barnes or too high on Heathcott to think his team rankings are flawed. Studies have shown that prospects near the top of "top 100" lists tend to have a higher expected value, but prospects ranked in the back half of the top 100 all tend to produce at a similar level. Having the top prospect (by a decent margin), similar depth of top prospects (one each in the 31-40 range, two each in the 50-100 range, one each in the next 10) and a deeper overall system (much deeper in my opinion, but I think we can at least say that Law view's the Sox system as deeper based on his assessment) should put the Red Sox system over the Yankees. I'm not really sure there is a good argument against this. Study on performance of top prospects: www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 10, 2013 23:59:14 GMT -5
To say his rankings don't make sense would imply that you are thinking he's either thoughtless in his rankings or purposely pushing the Sox ranking below the Yankees. I dont like the man, so defending him is maddening to me, but there is little chance I believe he doesn't put thought into things, nor do I think he's dumb. Just because people don't understand his reasoning doesn't make his reasoning wrong nor does it mean he doesn't have any.
That study is meaningless with regards to this conversation. It's an historical look at how players ranked in the top 100 have fared. Means nothing to the current players as individuals. It means even less when we are trying to get into Keith Laws head.
People should try to open their minds to see where he's coming from rather than argue against someones opinion. It's just an opinion and he's a rather smart guy so it may be wise to at least try to see where he's coming from.
No ranking is factual. Keep that in mind.
|
|
|