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 dcb26 on Jul 27, 2019 20:18:26 GMT -5
I wouldn't trade Dalbec or Hernandez unless I'm getting a crazy good arm talent like Thor. Mata and Casas are untouchable. The idea that Casas or Mata shouldn't be included in a deal for a player like Syndergaard or other elite non-rental talent is wildly over rating their value imo.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 22, 2019 13:47:52 GMT -5
Ive gotten the sense from interviews etc. the last few years that AA is where they really start working on launch angle with hitters - or possibly even more generally when they really focus on optimizing a hitter's mechanics etc. rather than more basic fixes and simply working out the kinks a hitter may have in their swing/approach. Just speculation and may be completely off base, but if at all true it might further explain some of the changes (as many positive as negative) hitters have experienced upon reaching that level.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jun 1, 2019 21:09:07 GMT -5
I hope/expect the Sox to be sellers at the deadline. A sweep of the Yankees would have provided a modicum of hope, but that didn't happen. A series loss would help cement this. What was the math around someone unseating dmaineah for the most ridiculous take of the season? Yet it just happened. In comparison, the Sox odds of winning the division are great.To give some actual substance to this post, the (Red) Sox still have a very solid chance...call it 50/50, either they play up to their talent level, or they don't. If they do, the schedule is well set up for them to make up ground - Smoltz just said this on the game broadcast, but there were discussions about this way back when the schedule came out, and again in the preseason. The later part of this season was always going to be extra-important. After this weekend, the Red Sox have, if I counted correctly, 14 games remaining against each the Yankees and the Rays. Either way, their season is up to them - if they give up, then yes, there is no way they make the postseason. Given the talent on the team, I'll take my chances. Incidentally, the 2019 Red Sox remind me a ton of the 2004 team - not necessarily in a good way, more in the "coming off a long postseason and greatly under-performing expectations over the first part of the year, while fans debate whether or not to just give up" kind-of way.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 12, 2019 17:50:50 GMT -5
Not sure where you saw him referring to Dalbec as "perfect" or expecting a return as if he's a "perfect" prospect (your word in your analogy.) His point, as I read it, is simply to maximize the potential return for Dalbec now, whatever that may be. I get disagreeing about Dalbec's potential future, but how do you have a problem with that logic? Because teams do not shop prospects and any team that does is going to be greeted with extreme caution. Why would any team shop a prospect unless they don't like him? And given that, it destroys his trade value because why does the team that knows him best not like him and want to get rid of him? I mean find one single trade rumor ever where a team was shopping one of their top 10 prospects for the best offer. The perfect comment was just for effect, not a direct comparison to Dalbec. Any trade suggestion where the team is trying to trick other teams because they think a player is worth less than they do is just ridiculous. There are no more GMs around that are that stupid. Every single team in baseball know how risky Dalbec is because they can just look at his K rates. Yes, teams do have at least a general idea of the value of their prospects and what they're worth in a trade, without actively shopping them. It is perfectly reasonably to say "trade someone for whatever they're worth now before they're worth less later" unless you either don't think prospects *ever* increase or decrease in value, or think every team scouts and values every prospect the exact same.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 12, 2019 14:43:24 GMT -5
Teams don't all see prospects the same. You may be shocked to learn some teams likely value Dalbec higher than the Red Sox do (and probably some do lower). I personally don't think he becomes an every day major leaguer, and the talk about him being a 30 HR/.400 OBP bat in the majors is absolutely insane. Since I believe that, I would say trade him to any of you who think that's crazy talk. To say I'm wrong about Dalbec not being a future valuable MLB player, and also saying no team would trade for him, is talking out of both sides of your mouth. I have this perfect car that I'll sell you for whatever you want to pay for it, but I have to get rid of it. What's your first question? Not sure where you saw him referring to Dalbec as "perfect" or expecting a return as if he's a "perfect" prospect (your word in your analogy.) His point, as I read it, is simply to maximize the potential return for Dalbec now, whatever that may be. I get disagreeing about Dalbec's potential future, but how do you have a problem with that logic?
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Apr 17, 2019 10:40:11 GMT -5
They've had like four years to evaluate the Swihart vs. Leon question, 15 days shouldn't have changed anything. That doesn't mean make no change or to not keep making evaluations, it means the process behind this specific change is nonsense. Is it really that crazy to think they picked Swihart over Leon mostly because they were comfortable that they wouldn't lose Leon, but decided "we'll give Swihart one more look, but if/whenever we feel Leon would be the better guy to have on the team, we'll move on from Swihart" and that that moment arrived already? Just because it's only been 18 games doesn't make it impossible for that to have been the thought process. If this was purely a panic move, then sure, it's really dumb - but just because fans are panicking doesn't automatically mean the team has become completely irrational in its decision making.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 18, 2019 12:38:32 GMT -5
I'm relatively new to using statcast/batted-ball stats so I don't know how much of a sample size is needed for this data to be useful, but looking at 2018 numbers, Swihart and Vazquez were nearly identical in exit velocity and launch angle, the only real difference was in BABIP, which was .237 for Vazquez and .311 for Swihart
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 18, 2019 12:14:42 GMT -5
Here's the thing: Leon & Vazquez have almost identical floors, ceilings, and expected outcomes. They're effectively the same player and both kind of "meh" Referencing your quote since it's convenient, but it seems like a lot of people look at those two and think "they're both defense-oriented rhh hitting catchers who didn't hit well last year, so they're effectively the same player" but see Swihart as someone who's still an up-and-comer, and this is one thing I definitely disagree with. Swihart will be 27 this year, Vazquez 28 for most of it - they're at roughly the same point in their development. Over the course of four seasons, Vazquez has about 400 more PA's in the majors; so while he has gotten more reps than Swihart, if you don't feel we have enough information to decide on Swihart, it's tough for me to understand how Vazquez is already cemented as to the type of player he will be. It just seems to me that most arguments in Swihart's favor involve saying "he's always injured or benched" which simply isn't strong enough to move on from guys that we know can help the team, at least in certain ways. I wouldn't be too upset if they traded Leon and kept Swihart as a backup, as the Red Sox may be the only people out there who have any real idea who or what Blake Swihart is and that would indicate they really do see something. Moving on from Vazquez seems insanely risky to me though, and I wouldn't be too surprised if Vazquez ends up as the better offensive player anyway.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 18, 2019 9:28:15 GMT -5
If Swithart isn’t either traded or given 60%+ of the starts behind the plate he should sue the Red Sox for his release (hyperbole) If Swihart is suddenly given 60% of the starts at catcher, *I'll* sue the Red Sox. Can I ask (seriously, non-snarky, etc.) what you, or anyone else that feels similarly, has seen of or heard about Swihart to warrant that? You reference his drastic improvements on defense, but how much evidence is there that that's the case? Even looking purely at offense, I don't see a ton of reasons for optimism. It's tough to use numbers to evaluate him, but just watching him I see a low-obp guy with warning-track power and some contact ability. If you do look at the stats, it's a small sample but certainly no more encouraging unless you pay pretty selective attention to certain numbers from 3-4+ years ago. I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise, so what am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 10, 2019 18:38:45 GMT -5
For how often the Pats get referenced here as an example of the *right* way to run a team, its interesting how many people are upset by the idea of building a team that's *only* good enough to be able to contend for the ALCS on a regular basis, and instead want the Red Sox to be a prohibitive preseason favorite in the World Series.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 31, 2019 15:46:50 GMT -5
Yeah, it’s really about depth. I feel good about Barnes and Brasier, but it’s inevitable that one of them will get hurt/worn down/be ineffective for at least 4-6 weeks at some point. When that happens, the high leverage options are gonna look reaaal slim. I think it’s self-evident that they’ll need a third high-leverage arm during the course of the season. Right now, they’re playing a numbers game, gambling that one of Brewer/Thornburg/Mejia/Lakins/Feltman/etc will emerge as that guy. I think this is a fair concern, it's one I share too. However, in order for Allen (or similar acquisition) to have been the right move, he has to be better than all or all but one of all of the following: the possible bounce-back guys (Thornburg, Workman, Smith), the offseason buy-low possibilities (Brewer, Tapia, Schlereth, Ramirez, Mejia), the young up-and-comers (Lakins, Hernandez, Shawaryn, Feltman, possibly Houck), a possible breakout from one of the older AAA/AAAA guys (Poyner, Walden, Smith, Taylor, Shepherd, Gorst), and Wright whenever he is back healthy. I don't love Steamer, but they project Allen at .4 WAR next year. That is higher than every single player listed above, but with that many guys, the odds that none or only one of them is better than an aging reliever with declining stuff coming off a very poor year? I don't see it, personally. To the idea that Allen or a similar contract would have been a negligible expense: even if you think 1/9 is a bargain, he needs to be enough better than all of those others to be worth 1/25th of their roster spots and approximately 1/25th of their payroll (roughly what it works out to) to be worth adding. If the Sox don't see it that way, then regardless of how free people think the Sox should be with their money, no successful business in the world will just arbitrarily throw around 9 million like it's candy - they may be perfectly willing to spend it, but not without reason. Further, this could hamper their ability to add someone at the deadline (depending on your thoughts about budget etc.) if Allen didn't work out. This isn't all about Allen, it's totally reasonable to believe he would have been a useful piece in the bullpen, even if I'm personally not so sure. As it pertains to the Sox' overall approach this offseason though, I don't think there were many other relievers out there who have even the same likelihood as Allen to have a good year and would be available for similar years/dollars, and there's never any guarantee of getting any one specific guy. Again, the concerns are legitimate, but when you look at what was out there and what the Sox have, it just seems pretty far-fetched to be as up in arms as many people here are. Anyway, that's all I've got on the subject, I am legitimately curious to see how it all plays out.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 31, 2019 13:56:00 GMT -5
I mean, there is a difference between not signing a reliever to a multi year deal to clog up payroll in order to resign Betts and then not spending at all for a proven reliever like a Cody Allen who only got signed for one year at 9 million. I can understand this point, especially if you don't believe budget should be any obstacle in 2019 - but even then Allen is probably the best of the one-year-deal guys, and is he even any better than Hembree or Brewer or at this point? I guess probably a little, but I don't know that I'd bet on it, and I certainly question whether the upgrade is worth 9 million even if there isn't a set budget.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jan 31, 2019 13:22:44 GMT -5
We just went through a season where: - The bullpen was a big concern going into and early in the year
- We *had* to get a trade deadline bullpen upgrade
- We didn't get a trade deadline bullpen upgrade
- Craig Kimbrel was seen as the only reliable reliever on the team going into the playoffs
- Craig Kimbrel was awful in the playoffs
- The rest of the bullpen was dominant in the playoffs
- The best reliever in the playoffs was a guy most people felt should have been left off the playoff roster
- We won the World Series
Every single year: - People complain about the quality of our high(er) priced relievers
- People note how volatile relievers are and how many of the best relievers each year come out of nowhere
- People wonder why we can't try to find the "diamond in the rough" types like other teams
This Year: - We went out and tried to find guys who could be that "diamond in the rough"
- There are likely fewer spots than usual for late-inning relievers due to a need for additional long-reliever/swingman types
- We appear to be sticking to valuations for players and not potentially undermining our future ability to make moves by being rash now (has any sports team in the last 15 years said "you know what we should do? Operate less like the Patriots!" ?)
Seriously, someone (rationally) explain to me why we need to throw a bunch of money at this? I mean, I get it in the sense that I would love to have more dominant bullpen options too, but in the same way that I would love to sign Mike Trout and keep Mookie Betts. Honestly the only reasons to be upset I can see are: "The Sox budget needs to be higher than whatever they actually spend, no matter how much that is" or "I thought early in the offseason they were going to sign more relievers but that didn't happen so now I'm angry." Again, in a vacuum, sure, more better relievers is good, but I see no reason to be confident enough in the guys that were out there to believe they will be worth their contracts and/or that they are better than what we already have.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Sept 20, 2018 17:34:10 GMT -5
Found the site sometime during the 2004 season after reading a Gammons article in the Globe about Charlie Zink. I was intrigued and needed to learn more, and this site was one of the first results on google. Always loved trying to follow the sox minor leagues, but before soxprospects the extent of the information I could find was the weekly stat tables in the back of the globe sports section...this is much better. Been (mostly) lurking every since.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 3, 2018 15:23:33 GMT -5
Obviously you should be able to see the flaw with RBIs, given that our best hitter by far has the 4th most RBIs on the team. Is Lindor almost equal to Mookie this year since he has 5 more runs scored and 10 more rbis? Is JDM much better than Mike Trout since he has 30 more rbis? Or maybe he has far more opportunities to drive runs in. You keep isolating single stats as though I’m saying the guy with the most X is best. I’m actually saying the opposite. I’m saying there are a lot of factors that go into all of the numbers, but typically (not always!) the guy with better major numbers is better. Of course, cumulative numbers CAN be deceptive, as well. Would it help if I said Evans had a longer span of productivity? If I had to sign one of the two to a 20-year contract, I’d take Evans. 10-year contract, Rice. But I’d say the same of Sutton and Koufax. I think the widespread “some people will never learn” eyerolls are a bit unfair. The Evans-was-better-than Rice is an outlier position, and I have nothing but respect for efforts to make the case. But sneering at a) the managers who treated Rice as the premier hitter at the time; b) all the people who presented him with more awards, MVP votes ROY votes etc.; c) all the HOF voters; and d) anyone who deigns to cite the fundamental statistics that make up box scores and scoreboards, etc etc is a bit unseemly. I get your point that it can be a bit off-putting sometimes to not just disagree with but completely disdain a lot of what happened through most of the history of the sport. The thing is, it's largely true that people were either ignorant of or afraid to make changes based on anything new or different. Take the stereotype of the "dumb manager" who didn't utilize his players effectively - in this context it's not really about any individual manager, but the way the game was played. Even if said manager really does think there's value in OBP over 'empty' AVG and speed in the leadoff spot, going against the established way of doing things means he better be damn sure it will work. If he bats the slow, walk-heavy player first and the team doesn't win more games (and there's obviously a lot more factors to winning games than leadoff production) he'll lose his job in all likelihood, whereas if he sticks with the status-quo he's unlikely to be blamed for doing things the same way as every other team. The fact that the game has evolved to where it is today isn't some freak chance, it's simply that easier access to data has allowed for more people to better understand the game, and therefore the game has changed in ways that weren't possible/likely previously. In response to the bit above about "the guy with better major numbers" and something you said before about Rice being statistically better, those points are only true if you look only at the stats in which those players were better. The stats available during the era we're talking about made it a lot easier to evaluate guys who stood out in the traditional metrics (I'm guessing those are the "major numbers" you are referring to) but that doesn't make those evaluations more accurate, or make those standouts the default "better" players. The point of stats like WAR that try to establish a baseline between all players is that all possible actions/outcomes can add or subtract value - a home run might be more valuable than a stolen base, but that doesn't mean that a great base runner can't be more valuable than a player who hits more home runs. Whether WAR does this effectively or accurately is something I personally think it's very fair to question, but to be able to look for improvements I think you first have to be comfortable with the basic premise. As a final point, when talking about the "better" player, context has so much to do with it too. If there's a fantasy scenario last offseason before the Sox signed Martinez, and I had the choice of either Rice or Evans in their prime playing for the Sox in 2018, I'd very probably take Rice - the team needed an infusion of power and already had/has a phenomenal right fielder. If I'm building a team from the ground up though, I'll take Dewey every time, as would, I think, just about anyone who operates a baseball team today.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 1, 2018 16:06:04 GMT -5
But in these instances the inferior players didn’t out perform: Harper has better numbers this season than Span, Arenado than Cain, Martinez than Chapman... but that is not reflected in WAR. As I wrote above, I’ll leave it at that. We are likely talk across each other, and I don’t want to gum up the board. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questionThis is such an early 2000s discussion. At this point, I just don't have the patience to explain how WAR works anymore. Wasn't there just a big thing ripping posts that contribute nothing on this site? As it relates to the WAR topic, I think this is actually a worthwhile discussion; we all know there are at least potential flaws with WAR, but it's become almost the default stat for discussing players, especially on this site. It's pretty fair to ask if that makes sense, and if it does, to look for more info as to why. I mean, we accept that the Sox front office knows more than any of us about their players yet we are still OK questioning their moves (as we should be) - I don't see why we can't question WAR or other stats just because they're more accurate than what we had in the past. Not every topic has to immediately become a referendum on "old school vs. new school stats" where everyone posts along their party lines. I know the active moderators and site staff tend to have a similar philosophy on this topic, and that's fine, but I don't think that's grounds for belittling a topic that questions it - this was a lot more nuanced than the old "RBI's make sense so they're better than WAR" (I think.) Anyway, I'm just a lurker so I'll go back to lurking, but just throwing it out there that 1) a discussion about how useful WAR really is could be worth having/revisiting (personally I'd love to see an ongoing discussion about changes/trends/advancements in baseball stats) and 2) as it pertains to this site, it would be nice if more people could participate in those types of discussions.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Aug 11, 2017 16:13:28 GMT -5
Very ugly swing indeed, what is happening to his legs? It looked like he would fall on every swing there. Video was posted 4/1/17, so I'm hoping the theory that he's changed something since Spring Training is correct. The swing in the video certainly looks a lot like the swing this site's scouting report describes, although I can see how he could make a lot of contact without much power as it looks like he's slowing the bat down in the zone, presumably to make contact, rather than trying to drive the ball. Of course, it's just a handful of swings from his first Spring Training. Edit: Or, what everyone else just said.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 13, 2013 8:54:51 GMT -5
I agree with the general consensus that the Sox had a solid draft, regardless of how much money they spent or had left.
However, I feel like when you have as much money left over as the Sox did, then they misread what it would take to get some of these guys done. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, maybe they were as surprised as we were to get Denney for what he ended up taking, and they simply didn't have a plan in place for what they had left-over, but to me even that is still a little disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jul 4, 2013 9:09:51 GMT -5
Middlebrooks does not seem overly quick at third and he is not an outfielder. 1B is an option. I don't know whether we have a potentially more powerful bat than WMB. He will get better and hit reasonably well IMO. I don't want to give up our home-grown talent indiscriminately. Bogaerts is probably better suited for 3B, at least long-term, and Iggy has a present iron-clad lock at SS. Wouldn't it be nice to have Cecchini, WMB, Bradley, Bogaerts, Iggy on the same team? Add Webster and RDLR on the pitching side. Low cost potentially impact players all. Now that would be exciting. Not if you can have a superior team by not having some of them on the roster. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jun 27, 2013 21:57:11 GMT -5
Who's worked up? Why do we jump to conclusions about being worked up over a post like the one I made? You also chose the part of the post that wasn't the point. The post was even about Owens vs Ball. However, since it's gone down this road: I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong. I'm saying it was pretty much said that they are looked at pretty equally, yet the new guy was put above. It was a bad example since it distracted people from the point over us tending to over-rate guys early on. Owens and Ball are basically rated the same, which is what i said. Because of this, I don't get why it was chosen to put Ball over Owens. My belief is right after guys are drafted we tend to over-rate them. We look at the positives. Then as we get to know them, we look at the flaws. I'm also a little confused as to why Ball gets a likely 6 grade vs Owens a likely 5 grade. I supposed I'm confused how we can give any raw HS pitcher the designation of likely having a Bruce Hurst type career. I suppose something has to go there as leaving them blank to start is much fun. Splitting hairs, but that's why we are here right? To discuss these things... ( reminder: no one is worked up about this so those of you getting defensive as you read take a deep breath)Success at any level versus NONE is somewhat of a track record. I never said I put a ton of stock into his A ball success, not once - it wasn't even inferred. And as you pointed out, I've made it clear I temper my expectations until I see how a guy performs at the upper levels. However, when dealing with "something" versus "nothing" the edge goes to "something". By ranking them 7 and 8 I take it to mean they are looked at virtually the same. Ball was given the edge. Why? Because we mostly see his strengths at this point? You are correct, it's basically 2 years (1 year 11 months). Today is Ball's birthday by the way. Happy Bday Trey if you are reading. This isn't a knock on you - you were the guy I wanted... However, to say Ball isn't far behind Owens developmentally is misleading. There is a chance Owens hits AA this year. Ball, if things go as well as we can possibly hope could reach AA in 2 years, most likely it will be longer for a high school kid. It's also irrelevant if Ball was more regarded than Owens was 2 years ago when drafted. It only matters where Owens is today after 2 years of professional development and experience. Not trying to criticize or put words in your mouth, but if you feel this way then I think you're paying too much attention to the comparisons between Ball and Owens - Owens' professional track record, although superior to Ball's since Ball hasn't played in professional baseball, isn't enough to outweigh the superior reports of Ball's tools and "stuff" If Ball's scouting report was that "he might someday be Henry Owens" then sure, I'll take the Owens who has already made some progress down that road, but I really don't think that's the case here.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Jun 23, 2013 9:19:56 GMT -5
Did anyone think that Webster had a sort of timid look or lack of confidence in his demeanor? Maybe that's his natural look but to me, it didn't look "game-face". This game does show that for some, the jump from AAA is cavernous. He clearly is not ready and IMO he is farther along than RDLR. Any ML game they start is sort of taking one for the team at this point. But with our pitchers falling by the wayside (now Morales), we may have to employ that process. On the good side, Webster had one helluva change-up. His lack of mound presence was brought up his previous start. The hitters definitely aren't "a scared" of him. Hitters are scared of a 98 mph fastball located on the black, not a guy who looks angry.
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on May 8, 2013 19:01:02 GMT -5
Meanwhile this is no doubt doing wonders for Websters' confidence. 0-0 again. May needthat long guy tonight. Soon. If only they had a long guy in the pen...Two thoughts re: Doubront. 1) The Sox may have thought they would need a long man with either of Doubront or Webster starting, and were more comfortable moving Doubront to the pen for a game/thought it was less likely to mess with Doubront's routine than Webster. 2) It's established that Doubront was out of shape and may have a tired arm already, they may have been looking for an excuse to skip him for a turn (not that it looks like he'll get much rest the way this game is going.)
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Apr 10, 2013 15:00:23 GMT -5
It seems to me just making that franchise into a .500 team was a pretty good accomplishment. Yeah but his predecessor really laid the groundwork for making them .500 team
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 31, 2013 23:32:42 GMT -5
1. How many games will the Red Sox win in 2013? (points +/-1 either way) 88 2. Who will win AL MVP? Jose Bautista 3. Who will win AL Cy Young? Felix Hernandez 4. Who will win AL Rookie of the Year? Wil Myers 5. Who will win the World Series? Nationals 6. Which current or ex-Red Sox player/prospect will get the most MVP vote points in 2013? Ellsbury 7. Who starts the most games for Boston after Lester, Buchholz, Dempster, Lackey, and Doubront? Allen Webster 8. Who is the first player to be added to the 25-man roster on or after April 15? (players coming off the DL do not count). Mitch Maier 9. Who is the first player to earn a permanent promotion after the season starts? (from any level to any level - not just to Boston - but excluding rehab re-assignments or call-ups from XST) Bard 10. Name one player the Red Sox will draft in 2013. Kris Bryant Red Sox minor league system only 11. Which pitcher has the most wins? Chris Hernandez 12. Most strikeouts? Matt Barnes 13. Which hitter hits the most home runs? Bogaerts 14. Best OPS? (min 200 PAs) Travis Shaw 15. Most stolen bases? Mookie Betts 16. Who will be voted the Offensive POY as voted by the SP Community? Travis Shaw 17. Pitcher of the Year? Henry Owens 18. Breakout POY? Deven Marrero 19. Comeback POY? Anthony Ranaudo 20. Which prospect will make the biggest jump in the SoxProspects rankings? Mookie Betts
|
|
|
Post by dcb26 on Mar 31, 2013 22:33:18 GMT -5
1. Xander Bogaerts 2. Allen Webster 3. Jackie Bradley Jr. 4. Matt Barnes 5. Rubby De La Rosa 6. Henry Owens 7. Bryce Brentz 8. Garin Cecchini 9. Jose Iglesias 10. Brian Johnson
11. Anthony Ranaudo 12. Blake Swihart 13. Deven Marrero 14. Brandon Workman 15. Brandon Jacobs 16. Manuel Margot 17. Alex Wilson 18. Pat Light 19. Christian Vazquez 20. Jose Vinicio
21. Travis Shaw 22. Ty Buttrey 23. Keury De la Cruz 24. Drake Britton 25. Cody Kukuk 26. Brock Holt 27. Tzu-Wei Lin 28. Chris Hernandez 29. Jeremy Hazelbaker 30. Frank Montas
31. Sean Coyle 32. Jamie Callahan 33. Alex Hassan 34. Kolbrin Vitek 35. Noe Ramirez 36. Mickey Pena 37. Juan Carlos Linares 38. Alixon Suarez 39. Aaron Kurcz 40. Michael Almanzar
|
|
|