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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 30, 2013 11:36:19 GMT -5
Or pitching yes. In basketball, football and hockey many players go straight to the big leagues after being drafted. How many players from this years draft go straight to the big leagues? My guess is zero or at most one.The most likely reason for this is that in the other three sports you can be good enough to play right away on your physical gifts alone. In baseball it might take you three years to master the changeup you barely threw in college. That said I do believe that most baseball players could have played the other major sports professionally had they wanted happened to go in that direction. The only real issue is size. Guys like Pedroia and Altuve are every day players in baseball even stars. In football they are scat-backs at best and they might not make the NBA. That's not really fair or informative though based on the difference in draft eligibility between the sports. Tons of top prospects in MLB drafts are raw high school guys who simply can't be fast tracked, NFL drafts revolve around older and more polished guys, the difference in draft rules and the lack of a minor league system in football make it impossible. If the NFL poached prospective college talent directly from high school and set up an expansive development league the same thing would be said about the NFL so I'm not seeing the point here. How many 19 or 20 year olds could play any type of significant role in the NFL? There have been many young players breaking through in the MLB at that age based on pure talent. Even the most talented teens still have to wait for their bodies to mature before entering the NFL. College Football is the superior product compared to College Baseball and they do a better job grooming guys for the next level. I realize the combine isn't the end all be all athletic test, but the average NFL player would smoke the average MLB player in agility tests, straight line speed, jumping, pure strength, etc. Baseball might have a higher learning curve, but that just squeezes out great athletes from other sports who weren't exposed to the sport early enough or split their time with other sports. Football is more inclusive, if you have the raw tools you can make the jump from baseball or basketball and develop fairly quickly.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 19, 2013 15:58:29 GMT -5
Honestly the Rizzo deal is a great great deal. Yes locking up great young players on reasonable deals are common. But this was a 7 year deal at 41 mill which is not only really cheap but a long deal usually they arent this long an cheap. With two options that lock him up till hes 32, 33. Cubs have done some great, great things under the Theo-Hoyer administration. They drafted well in last years draft, Stole Rizzo, actually they did that twice with that contract. They have already turn a awful farm into a good one. Soler may end up a huge steal as hes already killing it in High A. They have Javier Baez and Albert Amora which gives them three of top offensive prospects in baseball to pair with Rizzo an Castro. With a phew other good offensive prospects that people are sleeping on a little right now like Dan Vogelbach and Matt Szcuzr and I didnt even mention Brett Jackson and Josh Vitters, two solid players. Plus a phew good SP prospects like Paul Balckburn, Pierce Johnson and Dillon Maples. Id say this team has a bright future an This draft there set to add another big prospect with the 2nd pick an Im sure theyll add some upside picks later in the draft. Theo and Hoyer have the Cubs pointed in the right direction. This time Theo will do it the way he really wants to do it - sans the marketing nonsense and interference, and I think that will be a good thing for the Cubs organization. And man, do I wish the Sox had Rizzo right now. I'm not going to lie and say I was against Agon, but with his shoulder never likely going to be the same, I'd take Rizzo's next seven years over Agon's, especially at that price. Gonzalez didn't work out here but he's the reason the Red Sox were able to get rid of two albatross contracts and actually build a competent roster again. Even with hindsight I'd still do the original Rizzo/Kelly/Fuentes for Agon swap. Webster is more valuable than Kelly and getting rid of Beckett and Crawford's contracts (plus adding Rubby) was so huge. The Red Sox got a ton of value out of Rizzo (and then Agon).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 18, 2013 12:54:32 GMT -5
Marc Hutlet of Fangraphs ranked Betts the #15 prospect in the system entering the season. He was liked by many outlets even before this crazy season, this isn't just roster filler getting hot for two weeks.
I haven't read anyone here claiming he's going to emerge as a top 100 prospect or making any crazy MLB projections for him. Almost all of the intrigue has been based on his crazy stat line so far. It's a line that deserves attention even if it doesn't mean anything long term. Those are crazy numbers and as baseball fans/prospect followers you are allowed to enjoy them for what they are.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 14, 2013 19:23:02 GMT -5
Just for the record, Torii Hunter GOT 2 years and $26 million so...
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 13, 2013 16:38:43 GMT -5
I have a hard time giving Theo too much credit for this. They are in a full rebuild and offering Rizzo a long term team friendly contract is an obvious move for them. It's rebuilding 101 really, to not extend that offer would be negligent. It's the right thing to do, but nothing to fap over.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 9, 2013 13:04:17 GMT -5
Good SP prospect a year or two away, good MI and a C or 3B some type of combination of a couple or even phew of those players. Rarely do prospects get traded for prospects even in a 1 on 1 swap. No one in that OF of theres is going any were an A-Gone is maning first. Puig will be dealt but they will eathier undersell him at the deadline in desperation or try an swap him for a couple good prospects. Id offer Owens an Swihart or Workman and Coyle. Doubt eathier gets a deal done but if you offered Owens and Coyle or Owens and Checcini you would have then interested. No you wouldn't have them interested. The Dodgers aren't trading a guy they just signed to a big deal, who looks like he can play. Why would they even consider trading Puig and then down grading prospects on top of it. If by some freakish miracle of stupidity that Puig is available, it'd take Xander +++ to get it done ....
This whole thread is pretty sillyYet you just made this thread that much more silly.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 8, 2013 19:15:21 GMT -5
Red Sox pitching is in (2012) midseason form tonight.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 8, 2013 19:03:06 GMT -5
4 triples already on the year....he had 3 last year and 10 in his career before this season. Just a fluke I guess, he obviously isn't getting faster? He said one of his goals last offseason was improving his speed and baserunning.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 1, 2013 22:37:06 GMT -5
It's early, small sample size, he has a bad hip. All that aside, the Red Sox might want to lock Napoli up for two more years around the All Star break. They may have to outbid someone this offseason if he stays around .270, 30 hr, and slugs north of .525. If he has that type of season they'll give him the qualifying offer and it will probably shut down his market. Even if he has a year like he did in 2011 they can probably play it year to year moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 18, 2013 16:48:21 GMT -5
Berkman was .286 with avg of 15-20 Hr's per Milb season. I said Berkman "type hitter", which is a good hitter with some power. And college stats with 2 3/4 barrel Black magic bats are meaningless when translating HR power and SLG % And Bugs Bunny, if you prefer a .200 hitter with a 50% K rate tradeoff for a player trying to hit HR's every plate appearance, go for it!Better yet, follow Softball and pay a visit to the Kingman HOF This is like asking whether you want to read low level trolling or low level baseball discussion. The answer is neither, because many better options exist.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 12, 2013 15:43:03 GMT -5
What is this, Hammurabi's code? I have no idea why those two things should be linked. Maybe. But this stuff needs to be dealt with seriously. As much as I love the entertainment value in a bench clearer, this stuff shouldn't be part of the game - that's what hockey is for. So the actions, during a fight, of a member of one team, lands a top pitcher for a division rival on the IR for perhaps 2-3 months, and the other player - a key player - gets to keep helping his team win. Not sure how that makes sense. A hit batter is a part of the game, charging the mound is not. But it HAS been a part of the game. Guys have recently charged the mound and haven't been suspended for over a month. Changing protocol because of a freak injury isn't fair to Quentin. If they want to take it out of the game moving forward fine, but don't make it up as you go.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 11, 2013 15:12:28 GMT -5
I disagree with the base assertion here, finding impact power bats takes on more importance as the ability gets more scarce.
With the caveat that I find these projections relatively pointless, I still don't understand the strategy here. The only guy the organization would be investing in long term would be Ellsbury. He has durability concerns, a skill set heavily reliant on speed that may not age well over the course of his next deal, and most important the Red Sox have a ready made replacement in JBJ. Instead, they'd put the inferior defender in CF and minimize JBJ's value by putting him in RF...all while banking on Ellsbury to be the middle of the order hitter he's only been for one (seemingly) fluke season.
The infield would be built around Iglesias and as a result decrease the value of both Bogaerts and Marrero by moving them to positions they don't need to be moved to. The two best building blocks (Middlebrooks and Pedroia) are forced out of the lineup with nothing to show for it. Why? It's a waste of assets in almost every possible way. The team should be built around Bogaerts, JBJ, Middlebrooks and Pedroia not Ellsbury, Iglesias, etc.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 8, 2013 22:50:51 GMT -5
Imagine if the MLB held the ump accountable for this call?
Zobrist knows the strike zone better than almost anyone, I can't imagine how pissed he is...Ciriaco wouldn't understand what the big deal is.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 7, 2013 14:53:19 GMT -5
I was never a fan of giving 9 million to a broken down Stephen Drew and would have sunk or swim to see what I had with Iglesias with little expectations for this club. This team could have spent 9 million more efficiently than on Drew even if it was for one year. That would leave you one injury away from Pedro Ciriaco being a full time player with no viable backup. Jmei already mentioned Iglesias's issues staying healthy so far and shortstop is a position which sees a lot of injuries. I wanted Drew from the beginning of the offseason, I thought it would be for around $7m but the team was in the position to overspend...it's not like they can reallocate their extra money on the draft and international free agents. Acquiring depth at a position that's extremely scarce isn't the worst thing. The Ortiz contract was more inefficient, even if it was a lifetime achievement deal.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 6, 2013 15:16:23 GMT -5
Okay it's early in the ear but what is left of the team from last year that gave you a bad taste I.e. (Lackey and Aceves) should be jettisoned A.S.A.P. I know the deal with Lackey but with the payroll flexibility we can afford it. I have seen nothing from Aceves this year. There's more younger and hungier options in AAA. Lackey wasn't on last year's team, so any "bad taste" would come from 2011. After finding out Lackey was pitching through a serious arm injury in 2011 I put the season in proper context and everyone else should too. The fans and media have been (very) unfair with Lackey and I'm rooting for him as much as anyone on the team. Aceves needs to go soon though, I just hate seeing his face at this point.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 4, 2013 22:53:17 GMT -5
What is it about soft-tossing lefties that historically gives this team nightmares? Selective memory? You beat me to it, the exact same response too... Do a google search and you will find every team/fan base claiming the exact same thing.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 4, 2013 22:48:11 GMT -5
AA Portland, the Org will look past the hitting, lack off, but the pitching, and who lays the eggs is an issue, and the holes in the gloves. OK to like tools from prospects, and 97mph velocity, but fast and flat "throwers" are not pitchers. DUI and a headcase.........time will tell By the way, the REPORTING on this site is nice, but please disclose nobody on Staff is a qualified baseball scout/evaluator Thanks This read like something Charlie Kelly would write so the snark is extra hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 1, 2013 20:47:34 GMT -5
[ A related concern is about marketability driving the decisions, as Fenway points out, rather than overall baseball sense. Again, if the Sox are painted into a corner where they cannot send Bradley down due to strong performance or other injuries, then the Sox screwed themselves out of a peak year (whether they can re-sign him or not is irrelevant - most of the time you pay to much to do that and it hurts long-term) because the marketing couldn't do the logical thing - wait nine games. There is no reason, other than self conceived negative thoughts to think Bradley being on the team was driven by marketing versus baseball reasons. There's also no way they can't send him down at some point. They obviously feel he's ready to play and have injuries so perhaps their thinking is to wait for Ortiz to return. If he doesn't, or there are other injuries at the time, perhaps they are still willing to send him down. There is a depleted roster now. There may not be later.. Maybe that's the gamble. On top of it, he's never played 162 games so maybe they want to give him a break mid season. At that point maybe Brentz or someone else will be ready for some ABs. The point is they'll never be forced to keep him up and a good argument can be made it's better for him to go down later in the year. I don't see how it's reasonable to expect the roster to be healthier as the season progresses, especially after the last few seasons. Ortiz has struggled with his injury since last season, and he's really the only injury right now. It's unreasonable to expect him to be healthy AND all of their outfielders to remain healthy. Now that everyone is talking about service time issues they'll be under the microscope and any decision to send JBJ down will be questioned unless he's struggling. Saying "there's no way they can't send him down at some point" is baseless really, there's a decent chance they'll have no baseball reason for sending him down and will either have to eat a year of team control or start an unnecessary media firestorm. Calling this team depleted is absurd, if they lack depth in any spot it's because they didn't plan properly, they've had as healthy of a spring as you can possibly hope for. Brentz wasn't expected to be a contributor early on and Ortiz is the only other injury, and it's not like that injury was a surprise. It's not a lock they'll be forced to keep him up all year, but it's certainly not a lock it will be an easy move.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 31, 2013 13:03:20 GMT -5
File this under shocker: Marlins purchased the contract of Jose Fernandez and he's expected to pitch all 150-170 of his innnings at the major league level. He's 20 and yet to pitch above A ball. Sounds like the Groupon deal didn't work. Gotta sell tickets somehow, right?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 25, 2013 13:26:07 GMT -5
I can't imagine them playing Nava in LF over JBJ at this point. Either Bradley will need a time in AAA in the next season or two, or he'll play so well we won't care. Or he will leave after the 2018 season and everyone will be bitching about the dumb move to call him up in April 2013 to fill a temporary "need". People will also laugh about how they thought it was a good idea to stick him in LF of all places.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 22, 2013 16:13:06 GMT -5
Of his 13 hits, 9 of them are against guys who spent the majority of their 2012 in AA or AAA. (I don't think any of whom get much consideration for top 100 prospect lists). IF you insist on making spring training stats mean something, I'd say that means he's proving he can hit AA/AAA pitching right now. That's pretty much what we were hoping/expecting before we started so . . . what's changed? An AVG of .429, OBP of .525, and OPS of 1.097 means that he "can hit" AA/AAA pitching (with some MLB pitching sprinkled in)? That's what you were expecting? He also hit .271 in a much bigger sample size in AA last year. I'm not claiming those stats are predictive either, but I'm having a hard time understanding why his ST stats are supposed to mean more.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 20, 2013 15:30:29 GMT -5
As a prospect, where his value has as much to do with his tradeability as anything else, I would agree. But if X, Iggy and Middlebrooks all become what we hope (even if Iggy is "just" an all-world glove that can hit enough to hit 9th) don't you try and find a way to get them all in the lineup before you start trading young cost-controlled players just because some of them CAN play the same position? Define Iggy's value in this scenario. If he's just an average to below major league regular all glove no hit shortstop I don't see the point. If Iglesias becomes an impact player then I'd look at it differently. By saying "hit enough to hit 9th" I'm having a tough time projecting that as more than a league average shortstop and certainly not an impact player. Moving Bogaerts (a potential impact shortstop) to fit an average player in his position makes little to me. People are talking about filling the 1B/LF/RF spots like it's more difficult than finding up the middle players. Iglesias didn't show enough last year to win the job over Mike Aviles. The Red Sox brought in Stephen Drew this year because they didn't want to go all in on Iglesias. Bogaerts might be MLB ready for 2014, and unless Iglesias has a breakout year where he establishes himself they aren't going to consider adjusting their top prospect's plans on the hope they can get value out of Iglesias. Bogaerts bat plays anywhere but if he was LIMITED to 1B/LF/RF his stock wouldn't be as high. Finding all glove no hit shortstops isn't that hard, even if his glove is the best of the bunch. Moving Bogaerts would have an opportunity cost as well, as someone like Brentz would theoretically be blocked in that scenario. Good systems will always have "blocked" players but injuries, busts, and trades happen. The Red Sox should be looking to build around Bogaerts and put him in the position to be the best player possible. Iglesias is not a very valuable commodity right now and needs to breakout in a big way at the MLB level to change that.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 20, 2013 12:15:28 GMT -5
Based on the Red Sox various position depths over the next few seasons I think there is a possibility Bogaerts ends up at first base. This is based mostly on the more remote idea that Jose Iglesias shows enough growth with the bat this year that he becomes a viable ML option. In terms of overall team strength this could make a lot of sense if Boagaerts is ready next year. Bogaerts has the athleticism which leads me to believe he could be a plus first baseman while filling the rare "Youkilis" role of possible being able to back up at third and maybe the outfield. That versatility was huge for us when Youkilis was able to cover those positions. I know it seems like a complete waste to have a guy with the ability to have a +bat at SS move to first, but paving the way for possibly the best fielding SS in MLB changes things, no? This is all just food for thought based on the speculations that Middlebrooks continues to produce at the ML level this year, Iglesias proves capable of holding down a ML job and Bogaerts is ready for the majors opening day 2014 (lots of ifs, yes). This could also potentially net us the 1st round draft pick, as well as save us the possible 13 million it would take to bring back Napoli if he has a big year this year. They need to build their roster around talents like Xander, not Iglesias. Iglesias shouldn't be a factor at all in Xander's future unless he explodes offensively and becomes a completely different player than he's been. I'm not moving the top prospect off a position he can currently handle and to 1B of all places just so a "viable" shortstop can keep his job. If Iglesias busts out and looks like Elvis Andrus we can revisit the topic. But even then there's a good possibility trading either one of them for a deal that would represent much better value than shifting Xander around just to fit your current needs. FWIW If Kevin Youkilis could've played shortstop it would've been way more valuable than switching off between 1b and 3b.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 14, 2013 12:11:00 GMT -5
Unfortunately, the fan base is going to spend the next two years comparing Welker and Amendola when, really, that's not the point. Just like the point wasn't Welker vs Edelman last year. BB looks at the whole package so the value of this decision depends on what he does with the rest of the offseason. One thing I can't wait to stop hearing is this whole "we lost him over JUST 1 million/year" argument. I think we just saw how important 1 million/year can be to a free agent. Under the circumstances (the Pats needs), I'd be more disappointed to know we lost out on a top CB, additional pass rusher, top X-WR, RT, etc than I'm that we lost Welker over it. Every million counts when trying to build a team. If BB didn't want to go there with Welker, I'd hope the thought is that he wants to use that extra money for something(one) else. The other reason why the $2m argument is misleading is if Amendola works out, the Patriots have the option of keeping him on a cost effective deal for five seasons. They would've had Welker for only two, and after that he'd be pushing the age where slot receivers fall off in a big way. I expect (if healthy) Amendola to completely replace Welker, assuming they don't radically change the offense and the targets the slot guys receives. People have become obsessed with catch totals as the end all measurement of production for some reason, so many media outlets have called Welker "the NFL's most productive receiver". It's the equivalent of calling Derek Jeter baseball's most productive hitter because he led the league in hits. Amendola has caught a higher percentage of his targets than Welker over their careers. Of course Welker leads the league in catches, the Patriots play at a crazy pace and lead the league in offensive plays while utilizing a pass heavy attack. The durability questions around Amendola are the only negative for me, but isn't Welker high risk to start a serious decline soon? I keep hearing about Welker's dependability and durability, but at a certain point all that previous durability works against him...he has a lot of NFL mileage on his body and that doesn't bode well for his health and performance moving forward. I like the idea of re-signing Edleman as depth/injury insurance.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 11, 2013 14:13:32 GMT -5
I don't get the whole Bradley discussion. Not at all. He shows superior defense, and has absolutely mashed against MLB pitching thus far. Way to ruin his confidence by sending him back to the minors. It's like, what else does he need to do to justify a spot on the Red Sox team? [sarcasm] Oh I get it, the first pitch homer is a clear sign of lacking plate discipline. [/sarcasm] In case this post wasn't entirely sarcastic, spring training stats are meaningless. Accepting this as fact is key to appreciating ST for what it is.
|
|
|