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 Guidas on Feb 14, 2024 8:32:19 GMT -5
Bloom had "mixed results" but the two "outliers" from the last 10 years have both emerged in the last year or two. Hmm... Three members of the rotation with above average ERA+ last year:Bello - 107 ERA+ - 157IP - Small bonus signing Crawford - 113 ERA+ - 129IP - 16th round pick Pivetta - 113 ERA+ - 142IP - Acquired for reliever rentals Five members of the bullpen that look to be high leverage relievers:Schreiber 150 ERA+ last 2 years in pen - Claimed on waivers for nothing Bernardino 143 ERA+ in 50IP last year - Claimed on waivers for nothing Whitlock 2.65 ERA as a reliever - rule 5 Houck 2.68 ERA as a reliever - Late 1st round pick Winckowski 158 ERA+ in 84IP last year - Acquired for a regressing outfielder I guess I take issue with the notion that Bloom administration wasn’t finding undervalued pitching and bringing it into the system as well as developing it. Over half the staff looks to be filled with impact pitching that was acquired for nothing or very little. I hope this trend continues (Slaten, Fitts, Campbell, Mata). Not acquiring front of the rotation pitching is a fair criticism, but the pitching development and acquisition system as a whole seems much improved then it was when he took over. If you add a prime Sale or Price type pitcher to this staff it gets formidable pretty quick. This system does seem dependent on acquiring mid and front of the rotation starters through free agency and trade. Better than it was when they won three division titles in a row? OK…
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 13, 2024 22:36:05 GMT -5
I agree with most of this. It's not always first rounder or the big bucks pulling in the pitching talent. In fact, Cleveland and LAD have been successful in rounds 3-5 consistently, and Tampa has been very successful acquiring undervalued guys - both inconsistent veteran and prospects - and sprinkling magic dust on them. I think the key is better scouting and pitcher development more than dollar asset allocation. These were supposed to be hallmarks of Chaim Bloom's skill set, but he had decidedly mixed results. Now Breslow and Bailey are the new Pitcher Whisperers™. We'll see. Also, I think the hit on pitching development hasn't been "no home-grown starters" as much as it is "no homegrown starters who aren't 4/5s." That's been much more representative of the outcomes over the last 10+ years, with Bello, who's a 3 right now but still has a ton of development, being a distinct outlier. Crawford was right there for most last year, too, although both ZiPS and Steamer has him regressing significantly this year. I don't know enough about their models to know what that prediction is base on, but results will be seen on the field. Either way, you've got two guys right now who are outliers from the last 10 years. The question will be can they improve, especially Bello who is just 24, to become consistent #2 types or better. But we'll need more, and more evidence that Breslow and Bailey offer a positive departure from the vast bulk of what we've seen from the last three regimes' pitching development. Bloom had "mixed results" but the two "outliers" from the last 10 years have both emerged in the last year or two. Hmm... Yup. If you want to imply that it was Bloom or his system who got the most out of two guys he inherited, that’s fine and probably merited in Bello’s case as most of his development came under that regime. Crawford, however, continued his up and down roller coaster ERA/FIP under Bloom in much the same way he had before without Bloom. He may make a big leap out of the #4 starter type profile this year - and he’s certainly flashed #2 stuff fin stretches - but then do you credit that to the new guys or the last guy? But if you want to give Bloom credit for the two outliers, then he or his system has to be held to account for not getting to what ever it was out of Péréz that made him an all star as soon as the Sox walked away from him. Ditto Braiser, who walked out the door broken, and two weeks later was pitching like one of the nasties set-up men in the league. Same for Strahm. And it was Bloom or his system/scouting that undervalued Springs, who was dealt for spare parts and became an ace almost immediately. Also the same scouting/eval system that identified Kluber as a good idea, clung to Ort like he was made of platinum, identified Wacha as a low risk opportunity (good job!), yet let him walk after a year only to see him continue that low cost success elsewhere (not so good job). So, yeah, I think Breslow and Bailey need to produce better than that with pitching scouting, acquisition and development, or they’ll just be at the end of the next conga line in 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 13, 2024 15:11:54 GMT -5
People are reading this as a problem that needs to be fixed by drafting more pitchers, but I don't actually think that's the case. In fact Ian doesn't even really say that. This is a zero-sum situation: to spend more draft resources on pitching means spending less on position players. Does anyone really wish we had gone with pitchers instead of Casas or Anthony just so that we'd have a more "balanced" system? Ian also points out that there were only 28 [but by my count 32?] pitchers with 3+ fWAR in the majors last season. I'd add that there were only 14 4+ WAR players. By contrast, there were 73 position players who put up 3+ WAR and 45 who put up 4+ WAR. That's another way of saying that there's just more value to be had in position players than pitchers. Seems to me their draft approach makes a lot of sense in light of that.
And finally: despite the fact that the Red Sox "never develop home-grown pitching," their rotation is set to feature 3 home-grown pitchers this year, each of whom has very respectable upside. That seems perfectly adequate, if the other side of the coin is that they are especially strong in positional player development.
I agree with most of this. It's not always first rounder or the big bucks pulling in the pitching talent. In fact, Cleveland and LAD have been successful in rounds 3-5 consistently, and Tampa has been very successful acquiring undervalued guys - both inconsistent veteran and prospects - and sprinkling magic dust on them. I think the key is better scouting and pitcher development more than dollar asset allocation. These were supposed to be hallmarks of Chaim Bloom's skill set, but he had decidedly mixed results. Now Breslow and Bailey are the new Pitcher Whisperers™. We'll see. Also, I think the hit on pitching development hasn't been "no home-grown starters" as much as it is "no homegrown starters who aren't 4/5s." That's been much more representative of the outcomes over the last 10+ years, with Bello, who's a 3 right now but still has a ton of development, being a distinct outlier. Crawford was right there for most last year, too, although both ZiPS and Steamer has him regressing significantly this year. I don't know enough about their models to know what that prediction is base on, but results will be seen on the field. Either way, you've got two guys right now who are outliers from the last 10 years. The question will be can they improve, especially Bello who is just 24, to become consistent #2 types or better. But we'll need more, and more evidence that Breslow and Bailey offer a positive departure from the vast bulk of what we've seen from the last three regimes' pitching development.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 13, 2024 13:53:12 GMT -5
I'm a fan of the Red Sox drafting philosophy, although my expectation is that it will change. I don't think the league has quite adjusted all the way to the actuarial table reality of drafting pitchers, and so hitters remain undervalued. Despite extending this lack of capital investment to the major leagues, the Sox rotations rates to be middle of the pack, and only two wins worse than 5th place: www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=SP. With an elite position player group, that would be enough for a strong team. Or they could actually treat some of these elite position players as assets and trade some for legit (i.e. #1/2 starter types), controllable pitching.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 13, 2024 13:51:22 GMT -5
Best piece I've read on baseball in the last 12 months. Congratulations!
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 12, 2024 15:57:01 GMT -5
Sounds like a perfect fit for the Sox. Yeah if the bat plays at the MLB level and he really is a decent glove...I could really see Grissom in LF with his athleticism and Yorke at 2B. Yorke will have to hit pretty decently though just to make it at all. That won't happen this year, but Yorke will definitely get a cup of coffee by the end of 2024. If he tears it up in AAA, maybe mid year? But he really hasn't done that since 2021, so it doesn't seem likely. From what I've read, "decent glove" would be his absolute ceiling, defensively. The sell would be he's projected to be a high OBP guy. High enough to be a DH on a contending team would probably have to be north of .370 for him to be the regular DH, especially with his lack of HR power.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 12, 2024 15:52:03 GMT -5
I wonder if we're getting to the point where either Montgomery or Snell would accept a one or two-year overpay contract? There's risk in that - injury or poor performance - vs. sitting out and seeing if a team that loses a starter early jumps, or the price or years come down enough to make one or both more palatable.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 12, 2024 13:19:38 GMT -5
Keith Law's Red Sox top 20: 1. Marcelo Mayer 2. Roman Anthony 3. Ceddanne Rafaela 4. Kyle Teel 5. Miguel Bleis 6. Wilyer Abreu 7. Mikey Romero 8. Yoeilin Cespedes 9. Nick Yorke 10. Nazzan Zanetello 11. Wikelman Gonzalez 12. Luis Perales 13. Yordanny Monegro 14. Johanfran Garcia 15. Blaze Jordan 16. Richard Fitts 17. Eddinson Paulino 18. Branon Walter 19. Chase Meidroth 20. Bryan Mata theathletic.com/5261710/2024/02/12/red-sox-2024-top-prospects-keith-law/My main two takeaways: 1. Even as someone with reservations on Yorke, Romero above him is pretty wild. 2. The second straight guy that’s had the two top pitchers a smidge lower, but Monegro being lumped into that general tier is interesting. Yorke's also blocked now with Grissom the presumptive second baseman. He doesn't have another position to go to. The hit tool is the carrying tool, and he has nowhere else to play except second from all accounts. He may find himself in a package for some pitching from a team that needs a second baseman or who favors a high OPB DH who has 10-15 HR power.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 12, 2024 13:13:51 GMT -5
The time to trade him - if that's a thing - was two years ago when a team could've gotten two years of Devers at relatively low cost and the Sox could've gotten a 1/2 starter with the same or more control.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 12, 2024 11:06:19 GMT -5
I'm not poo-pooing young talent. I want them all to succeed. But it is very unlikely to have a mostly homegrown team become a sustained playoff team. They will need augmentation, especially in the starting pitching area. This can come through trades, but while Breslow is new, I still find it questionable that they will trade a couple prospects from the top 1-5 in a package with another player (or two) for another team's controllable (2 more years) #1/2 starter. That leaves, free agents. That will mean going all in on a couple or three guys - if available. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for them to compete in the AL East. If the goal is to build a 90ish (88-90 depending on the year) win team to make sure you get to the playoffs, I'm good with that. But you'll still need a top starter or two to get you past the first round if you want to have a sustainable/perennial playoff team. I would argue that if you want a sustained playoff team, the only way to do that is with a large share of homegrown players. Without that, you're not going to be able to add enough value in free agency to make the team consistently good. Pitching will indeed need to improve if the Sox are going to make that happen, but really the only area that is lacking is the front of the rotation and they should have the cash and trade chips to address that going forward. If they don't, what are they going to do, run $150 million payrolls, let guys like Mayer and Anthony stay blocked in AAA rather than make a trade, and basically go full Producers on the Red Sox? That seems like an unreasonable amount of pessimism, and if we rule that out, it's pretty much inevitable that the pitching will be improved through signings and/or trades before too long. I mean, it's not like that money and prospect capital will go into the infield.
I think we're on the same page with regard to prospects. My observations are less motivated by pessimism as they are by actions of the front office. I understand who is/was available this year, but there was also opportunity in the market last year. But mainly I'm frustrated because this off-season is essentially indiscernible from last off-season. The team really isn't demonstrably better in my opinion. It's like a premeditated punt. Again.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 11, 2024 12:34:37 GMT -5
OK, this was my error. I was going off the FV = 2.5-3.5 to be an MLB Average player. But even with 2.0 fWAR, the original argument was the list + Devers = a team of MLB Average guys (minus Winckowski). It's not. It may be close. There are useful pieces here, and some guys with a lot of potential. But, OK, I'll admit I botched the qualitative range for average MLB player and the threshold is 2.0 instead of 2.5. I screwed up. Point stands that we're being sold a message that, all the Sox need are a couple more guys in 1-3 years who'll be MLB average or slightly better and then... THEN they're going to load up on enough big ticket free agents to win the division!? OK, let's live in this world for a moment. From multiple reports, the organization's reputation with agents and players has fallen significantly in the last several years. So has their win totals. The cumulative effect is, when they do make that big free agent push for a couple or three stars to augment the controllable average talent, they will have to do what Texas and SD did a few years ago - set the market on these players/positions. And not just on one guy. Likely they will need 2-3 of these guys, and at least 1 if not 2 in the worst category for this kind of outlay of all - starting pitching. Pitchers break. With longterm, market-setting contracts, when they break, the deals look even more absurd than when they were executed. All that said, there is nothing from this ownership group since late 2019 to suggest they will set the market on any star. Maybe there'll be a complete about face, but right now I'm not seeing any indication - except Kevin Kennedy happy talk - this will occur. Unless we're back to believing that their front office is now/again/soon-to-be smarter than everyone else at finding undervalued talent, especially pitchers. That was the buzz when the last GM was hired. Gonna be a hard no on that one, too. I think the problem is that you're the one that's adding this part. I don't believe the Red Sox are ever going to 'load up on big ticket free agents'. I think they best you'll see them do is load up on one in a given year. I would suggest that if you're going to poo poo the young talent that has come up from the minors, you can make that argument without moving the goal posts to include an irrelevant point about big ticket free agents. Young guy they can lock up for 10 years - I could see that. $200 million on a 30 year old - I don't think we're going to see that again for a long, long time. I'm not poo-pooing young talent. I want them all to succeed. But it is very unlikely to have a mostly homegrown team become a sustained playoff team. They will need augmentation, especially in the starting pitching area. This can come through trades, but while Breslow is new, I still find it questionable that they will trade a couple prospects from the top 1-5 in a package with another player (or two) for another team's controllable (2 more years) #1/2 starter. That leaves, free agents. That will mean going all in on a couple or three guys - if available. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for them to compete in the AL East. If the goal is to build a 90ish (88-90 depending on the year) win team to make sure you get to the playoffs, I'm good with that. But you'll still need a top starter or two to get you past the first round if you want to have a sustainable/perennial playoff team.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 11, 2024 11:14:18 GMT -5
It’s Super Bowl Sunday and this team still doesn’t have a full rotation. Good thing they're not playing in the Super Bowl I guess Usually a point on the calendar where teams have their big pieces in place as pitchers and catchers report 2-3 days after SB.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 11, 2024 11:06:31 GMT -5
There are 1,000 WAR leaguewide over a season, 570 of which go to position players. This is by the definition of how WAR is calculated. 570 divided by 30 teams divided by 9 position is 2.1 WAR per 162 games (or roughly 700 PA) at each position. I don’t like suggesting people are arguing in bad faith but I’m pretty sure Guidas has said exactly this before and then like 5-10 people responded saying that no, the average is actually about 2 WAR and he ignored it then too. OK, this was my error. I was going off the FV = 2.5-3.5 to be an MLB Average player. But even with 2.0 fWAR, the original argument was the list + Devers = a team of MLB Average guys (minus Winckowski). It's not. It may be close. There are useful pieces here, and some guys with a lot of potential. But, OK, I'll admit I botched the qualitative range for average MLB player and the threshold is 2.0 instead of 2.5. I screwed up. Point stands that we're being sold a message that, all the Sox need are a couple more guys in 1-3 years who'll be MLB average or slightly better and then...THEN they're going to load up on enough big ticket free agents to win the division!? OK, let's live in this world for a moment. From multiple reports, the organization's reputation with agents and players has fallen significantly in the last several years. So has their win totals. The cumulative effect is, when they do make that big free agent push for a couple or three stars to augment the controllable average talent, they will have to do what Texas and SD did a few years ago - set the market on these players/positions. And not just on one guy. Likely they will need 2-3 of these guys, and at least 1 if not 2 in the worst category for this kind of outlay of all - starting pitching. Pitchers break. With longterm, market-setting contracts, when they break, the deals look even more absurd than when they were executed. All that said, there is nothing from this ownership group since late 2019 to suggest they will set the market on any star. Maybe there'll be a complete about face, but right now I'm not seeing any indication - except Kevin Kennedy happy talk - this will occur. Unless we're back to believing that their front office is now/again/soon-to-be smarter than everyone else at finding undervalued talent, especially pitchers. That was the buzz when the last GM was hired. Gonna be a hard no on that one, too.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 11, 2024 10:18:01 GMT -5
It’s Super Bowl Sunday and this team still doesn’t have a full rotation.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 11, 2024 9:06:00 GMT -5
An MLB Average player is a 2.5-3.5 fWAR player (I think we discussed this a while back, and it was mentioned in the rankings systems for projections, too, for FV.) Here’s the Zips projections for the above guys: Devers 3.6 (655 PAs) Casas 1.9 (502) Rafaela 1.9 (557) Duran 1.5 (415) Abreu 1.5 (474) Wong 0.8 (373) Valdez 1.4 (457) Grissom 1.8 (560 ABs) That’s exactly one MLB Average guy or better on offense. We could finagle CF with some sort of platoon to maybe get a 2.5 player, but Rafaela’s 1.9 is already projected to be 557 PAs, so we’re only looking at about 100 PAs for someone to be a 0.6 fWAR player. Doable but not easy, and with Duran projected to be 1.5 on 415 ABs and Abreu to be 1.5 on 447 PAs it will be tight. But let’s say they pull it off and give the position 2.5. And that’s 1 MLB Average or better guy and maybe 1 MLB Average position if, again, we can squeeze a 0.6 fWAR out pf the other 100 PAs going to Yoshida/DH We can use ZiPS for the pitchers but, as has been noted, fWAR not the best measure of them so let’s use projected ERA and FIP (there’s no ZiPS for xERA and xFIP) Bello 147 innings 4.28 ERA/4.03 FIP* Crawford 106 innings 4.49 ERA/4.20 FIP Houck 103 innings 4.62 ERA/4.34 FIP Whitlock 89innings 3.63.ERA/3.49 FIP Winckowski 99 Innings 4.36 ERA/4.10FIP For the sake of argument, ZiPS has Bello at 2.6 which would make him MLB average. For further context, out of the 58 pitchers who threw 150 or more innings last year, Bello was 40th in ERA/30th in xERA/49th in FIP/33rd in xFIP So given the above, at least by ZIPS and fWAR, the Sox have probably 2 MLB Average or better players on that list (Devers and Bello) 1 MLB Average or better platoon position. We may get a big leap forward for Casas, and Duran could repeat or exceed last year’s performance. Some pitchers could also exceed expectations. But right now, that is not a list of MLB Average players by the definitions we’ve been using. Maybe other measurements are being used, but the 2.5-3.5 fWAR is what was discussed earlier as the delineator for MLB average players. Where did you get these numbers? I'm seeing better ZiPS projections for all of these players on Fangraphs: Devers 4.1 fWAR (654 PAs) Casas 2.3 (524) Rafaela 2.4 (566) Duran 1.6 (447) Abreu 1.8 (480) Wong 0.8 (361) Valdez 1.7 (467) Grissom 3.0 (578) When you couple this with the fact that an average MLB regular is closer to 2 WAR (as others pointed out above), and that these guys aren't projected to get a full season's worth of ABs but are all above 2 WAR/600 PA except for Wong, my conclusion would be nearly the opposite of yours: a lineup full of just these guys would have average or better players at nearly every position. The only issue is that ZiPS projects a bit too much WAR leaguewide if I recall correctly, so these WAR totals should be a touch on the high side. I was using the definition for MLB average in FVs. Either way, if we’re talking fielding a roster of pre-arb guys plus Devers who are MLB average, as was stated about, this group falls short. ( Oh and I.was using the ZiPS projections from late last year.I didn’t know he updated since then blogs.fangraphs.com/2024-zips-projections-boston-red-sox/ )
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 10, 2024 22:34:52 GMT -5
A couple people made the point already, but I just want to emphasize: building around home-grown talent is NOT just a question of sitting around and waiting for Mayer/Anthony/Teel. The young talent already in or just arriving to the majors is actually pretty phenomenal. Like, look at this: C - Wong 1B - Casas 2B - Grissom/Valdez 3B - Devers SS - Rafaela LF - Duran/Abreu CF - Rafaela/Duran/Abreu RF - Abreu SP1 - Bello SP2 - Crawford SP3 - Houck SP4 - Whitlock SP5 - Winckowski, maybe Winckowski is iffy and I'm double counting Rafaela, but other than that they can field an entire lineup and rotation solely with pre-arb guys + Devers, every one of them by projections more or less an average major leaguer or better.* That's pretty wild! Not only could you not say this of the last several years - you couldn't say this of the 2018 team. Or any other Red Sox roster that I can recall.
*maybe not Wong, but I think the projections are too low on him, and in any case Teel is probably the safest bet of any prospect in the system to make it as at least an average major leaguer and he's probably only a year away
An MLB Average player is a 2.5-3.5 fWAR player (I think we discussed this a while back, and it was mentioned in the rankings systems for projections, too, for FV.) Here’s the Zips projections for the above guys: Devers 3.6 (655 PAs) Casas 1.9 (502) Rafaela 1.9 (557) Duran 1.5 (415) Abreu 1.5 (474) Wong 0.8 (373) Valdez 1.4 (457) Grissom 1.8 (560 ABs) That’s exactly one MLB Average guy or better on offense. We could finagle CF with some sort of platoon to maybe get a 2.5 player, but Rafaela’s 1.9 is already projected to be 557 PAs, so we’re only looking at about 100 PAs for someone to be a 0.6 fWAR player. Doable but not easy, and with Duran projected to be 1.5 on 415 ABs and Abreu to be 1.5 on 447 PAs it will be tight. But let’s say they pull it off and give the position 2.5. And that’s 1 MLB Average or better guy and maybe 1 MLB Average position if, again, we can squeeze a 0.6 fWAR out pf the other 100 PAs going to Yoshida/DH We can use ZiPS for the pitchers but, as has been noted, fWAR not the best measure of them so let’s use projected ERA and FIP (there’s no ZiPS for xERA and xFIP) Bello 147 innings 4.28 ERA/4.03 FIP* Crawford 106 innings 4.49 ERA/4.20 FIP Houck 103 innings 4.62 ERA/4.34 FIP Whitlock 89innings 3.63.ERA/3.49 FIP Winckowski 99 Innings 4.36 ERA/4.10FIP For the sake of argument, ZiPS has Bello at 2.6 which would make him MLB average. For further context, out of the 58 pitchers who threw 150 or more innings last year, Bello was 40th in ERA/30th in xERA/49th in FIP/33rd in xFIP So given the above, at least by ZIPS and fWAR, the Sox have probably 2 MLB Average or better players on that list (Devers and Bello) 1 MLB Average or better platoon position. We may get a big leap forward for Casas, and Duran could repeat or exceed last year’s performance. Some pitchers could also exceed expectations. But right now, that is not a list of MLB Average players by the definitions we’ve been using. Maybe other measurements are being used, but the 2.5-3.5 fWAR is what was discussed earlier as the delineator for MLB average players.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 9, 2024 15:15:08 GMT -5
This is my point exactly - even top 100 prospects have something like a 25% chance of becoming an MLB-average or better. To base your whole strategy - or a large part - on waiting for them and their success is, at least based on historical data, a fool's gamble. Its not all down to random chance, though, is it? The best teams in baseball are the ones that consistently beat those odds, which I would imagine is down to 1) superior data teams who can use the massive amounts of data that are now available to identify a prospect’s strengths and weaknesses, which helps them better project how a prospect will translate to MLB. This feeds into 2) using that data to help prospects work on changes that will help maximize their chances of making it in the big leagues, using superior coaching/development techniques. Player development has historically been a bit of a black box, but it’s become a lot more scientific in recent years. It seems pretty clear to me that the Red Sox are banking on seeing big returns from heavy investment in that side of the organization. I'm not saying it's random chance, though. I'm just looking at data a priors overall. Part of me would argue that the Sox may have a better chance of these particular guys becoming MLB average because they've had sustained success with position player development. But some of this is out of their control (i.e. injuries; guys just not displaying the ability to make that adjustment in MLB to become average or better). And the jump from AAA to MLB has gotten much more pronounced in the last few years. Those are all data points. They can become outliers, but banking on that is very risky.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 8, 2024 13:04:10 GMT -5
The thing is the only way they will ever be a team that can win the AL East is if they have prospects emerge to become above average MLB players. Then you supplement those guys with acquired talent. It is the only path. Look at the teams who have won the division. They do not do it without cheap talent outperforming their contracts. I actually agree with you that I'm disappointed with the current state of their spend, but even if they spend what I consider a reasonable amount this year they won't be division favorites. I don't know what you're asking them to do short of going full Cohen, which is just not in the cards. The problem I have with this, which I have said many, many times, is that if the Red Sox truly believe what you are saying here then their farm system is not good enough right now. I like all of our prospects and I hope they will be good, but the bust rate on prospects is so high that I don't think having 4 top 100 guys is acceptable. For every Mookie, Xander or Devers that the Red Sox produce you still get guys like Swihart, Owens, Moncada and Benintendi. All of those guys were top 25 prospects in baseball at one time. Jeter Downs was a top 50 prospect heading into 2020 and the #2 prospect on this site at one point. Jay Groome was a top 50 prospect in 2017.
I'm not saying that Mayer, Anthony or Teel will wind up being busts, but people are getting way ahead of themselves by penciling these guys in to the starting lineup in 2025. If we had 6 or 7 top 100 guys then I think it's fair to assume at least a few of them will pan out, but 4 doesn't really inspire much confidence.
This is my point exactly - even top 100 prospects have something like a 25% chance of becoming an MLB-average or better. To base your whole strategy - or a large part - on waiting for them and their success is, at least based on historical data, a fool's gamble. ADDED: There are ways to increase these odds or spread the risk. One of the best is what Speier suggested - signing some short-term FAs then trading at the deadline, unless this team is improbably headed for 90+ wins. Or you can go the Tampa route and trade some of your higher rated prospects for other teams (grossly) undervalued prospects. Or a team can do both. Anyway, it's just frustrating to watch because, unless the vast bulk of Duran, Rafaela, Casas, Grissom and Valdez play at MLB Ave or better level going forward, you're banking on at least two of Teel, Mayer and Anthony to do so "in the future" - which likely won't be 2025 because of the steep rookie adjustment periods we've seen over the last few years. So you're probably looking at 2026. This messaging we're getting from the front office is too much like the "Wait until 2023...2024...2025" refrain or implied/inferred "plan" associated with the last regime.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 8, 2024 11:27:12 GMT -5
I just can't get past the fact that this team with this ownership group has decided to eschew building a team that can win the AL East AGAIN and is instead asking us to bank on some non-specific future date when certain prospects reach MLB and become above average MLB players. They're asking this while acting as if the other teams in the AL East don't have either significant (and even better) prospect depth or financial resources or both.
I mean, are we the frogs in the boiling water here?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 7, 2024 17:22:33 GMT -5
First thought: Oh great - a distraction.
Second thought: Maybe this team will respond to the attention and play better than they have a right to do.
Third thought: Hey, how about some starting pitching to go with that Netflix series, John and Tom?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 5, 2024 9:31:57 GMT -5
That guy loves him some Ceddanne Specifically: "He’s not the sort of player I typically like with his undisciplined approach, but I think he has a chance to be the most valuable defensive outfielder in baseball, giving him a high floor and thus time to clean up the approach enough for the swing and speed to play."
That's a hell of a compliment.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 4, 2024 11:15:39 GMT -5
I'll add that, by this ranking, BALT has 5 guys in the top 5. Given what they have on the field already, and their very recent influx of cash (and perhaps new ability to extend 2-3 of their best current players), this bears watching.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 4, 2024 10:55:43 GMT -5
I think this is a new MLB.pipeline ranking, yes? Sox have 4 guys in the Top 100 (Mayer 15, Anthony 24, Teel 40 and Rafaela 76), which is great, but none by this measure are top 3 in their position. Two - Mayer and Teel are ranked 5th in their position. Note, however, the three outfield positions are simply identified as a single position. www.mlb.com/prospects/top100/
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 2, 2024 22:32:52 GMT -5
McDaniels has the Sox ranked 13th in his farm rankings which is right in line with everyone else that has released their offseason rankings. Better than what it was a few years ago but still leaves something to be desired. Other AL East rankings: Orioles #1, Yankees #6, Rays #7, Jays #24. Probably going to be some tough sledding for the Sox the next few years with the Orioles seemingly just beginning what should be a long window, the Yankees having a solid if not aging team but a farm to help bolster that and the Rays being the Rays. On the upside the Jays window could be closing with the impending FA status of Bichette and Vlad Jr and a rather low ranked farm. It's a little confounding that all that's happened since last summer is that Anthony got on a rocket ship, they drafted Teel, they didn't graduate anyone, and their farm ranking seems to have fallen. Meanwhile, the Yankees didn't add anyone notable, they traded away a bunch of young talent, and somehow they've vaulted ahead of the Red Sox. I think Mayer losing a ton of development time last season affected his ranking and the org’s. He’s still seen as high ceiling, high floor by the experts, but second season he’s lost significant development time. Could be they like him, but view the (perceived) gap between him and Anthony as more significant than the previous gap between him and Bleis. Bleis also lost a year of development time. It’s likely more instructive to see where the new top 5 Sox guys and the previous top 5 from last summer slot in the evaluators’ eyes vs. all current top 100-200 MiLB prospects. Also, this reinforces how fraught the Front Office’s strategy of becoming a playoff team hinging on the top 3 guys. Development is never linear and rarely comports to administrative time-tables.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 2, 2024 14:59:57 GMT -5
First good news since this team's playoff run in 2021.
How tangible will the results be? I think minimal. But given the ZiPS projections for the Sox vs. the rest of the AL East/AL and MLB, I need something to cling to.
|
|
|