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.
Baseball America Red Sox Top 10 Prospects
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Dec 16, 2013 18:24:29 GMT -5
Is Betts really that good of an athlete? I would've thought Bradley or even Margot would have been. Betts doesnt seem to have special speed and definitely isnt too strong. Seems like thats a little odd If you see him play defense you might agree with Speier. His athletism really stands out.
|
|
|
Post by jbberlo on Dec 16, 2013 18:28:15 GMT -5
I'm obviously not saying hes a bad athlete, just wondering if hes truly our BEST athlete
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Dec 16, 2013 18:28:30 GMT -5
Deven Marrero. He's 6 feet, played three years at Arizona State, and last hit during his freshman year at A State. I know he's a very good fielder, but I haven't heard anyone compare him to Iglesias. Sox dumped Iglesias, whose hitting ability is much like Marrero's. Why are some people, including Gammons and the Sox, high on him? I don't see it. Marrero has a .345 career OBP as a pro, which is higher than Iglesias had at any minor league level. Comparing their bats is probably as unfair as comparing their gloves. Also, the Red Sox hardly dumped Iglesias, they traded him for a major league starting pitcher. I know some people thought the return wasn't great, but it wasn't like they gave up on the guy. Iglesias good super fast tracked through the minors and had 250 at bats in Portland as a first year age 20 and 350 at bats in Pawtucket as a second year age 21. He was handled much differently and was never permitted to really develop his offense in the manner other Red Sox prospects such as Marrero have. Marrero is 22 and may very well still be in Portland on his 23rd birthday next August. His development has been age appropriate and yielded low OBP and almost nonexistent slugging. I doubt Iglesias wouldn't have at least matched and likely exceeded Marrero's minor league numbers if he followed the same age development curve as Marrero. Therefor, I think comparing their bats is fair. There is a difference but it seems relatively minor. What's interesting is that Iglesias is a mega bonus Theo guy and Marrero is Cherington's. Maybe Cherington, with has scouting bona fides, sees what Theo, who had no scouting background, did to Iglesias and is taking a different approach with Marrero. Using "dumped" to describe Iglesias transaction may be a little strong, but Peavy at time of trade was projected, and proved to be, a good 4th or 5th that the Red Sox wouldn't look to extend beyond 2014. Highly regarded prospects, especially young premium position players with multiple gold gloves in their future, ordinarily don't get moved at all, or draw a greater return than Peavy. I think the Sox pretty much cut bait with Iglesias and looked to sell high.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Dec 16, 2013 18:30:24 GMT -5
Let my amend my prior post by saying Marrero is 23 and will 24 next August.
|
|
|
Post by bmitchsox on Dec 16, 2013 18:33:21 GMT -5
Betts to SS seems like a great move considering he's blocked at second, and it provides good insurance incase they trade WMB and would rather see Cecchini in a corner OF spot. I think Xander could naturally shift to third considering he could fill out well and lose some range.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 16, 2013 18:50:15 GMT -5
I'll stick with my original opinion. The balance of his peripherals relative to his age suggests a highly projectable sabermetric "darling". He generates a lot of swings and misses as well as poor contact. The Professor Parks review and follow up commentary suggests a bottom of the rotation starter. SABR guys don't really believe in the idea of "poor contact" and will generally evaluate pitchers solely on strikeouts, walks, and home runs (and ground ball rate). By those measures, Owens was good but not great. I really do think the idea that he's a SABR darling is misstated, and the SABR vs. scouting narrative you're drawing up for Owens isn't really the case. Some scouts like him, others (read: Parks) don't. We are talking about a ranking here. That's a view looking forward not a view looking backwards. Whether you care to characterize ground ball rates as being poor contact or not doesn't make it what the hitter was likely trying to accomplish. It (and pop ups) are poor contact because the hitter hasn't barreled up the pitch. As far as the 'scouting' goes, go back and look at the Henry Owens thread, after the Parks evaluation, with the exception of the comments made by Onbase, virtually every "scouting" oriented comment pretty much said the same thing, that to progress he will need to add MPH to his fastball and that his mechanical flaws will make progression difficult. Show me a scouting report that is as optimistic as ericvan's saber view.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 16, 2013 18:54:52 GMT -5
As far as the 'scouting' goes, go back and look at the Henry Owens thread, after the Parks evaluation, with the exception of the comments made by Onbase, virtually every "scouting" oriented comment pretty much said the same thing, that to progress he will need to add MPH to his fastball and that his mechanical flaws will make progression difficult. Show me a scouting report that is as optimistic as ericvan's saber view. That was James' initial point: Owens is controversial for both scouts and SABR folks. Some scouts like him a lot (the ones that talked to Speier), others didn't (Parks). Some stats people like him a lot (Eric), others don't (me). Eric's take certainly isn't SABR gospel (indeed, many of his viewpoints different significantly from the Fangraphs orthodoxy). This isn't scouts versus stats people-- this is noone quite knowing what to make of him.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 16, 2013 19:05:40 GMT -5
Some stats people like him a lot (Eric), others don't (me). Eric's take certainly isn't SABR gospel (indeed, many of his viewpoints different significantly from the Fangraphs orthodoxy). This isn't scouts versus stats people-- this is noone quite knowing what to make of him. I think it's simple: He is inconsistent, which is pretty much what we all know since he was drafted. The scouts do not watch ALL of his starts, so sometimes he looks like the next great thing while others he looks mundane. Owens is not a bad case to scout the box score. While his performance might not always be there, his numbers are truly great for his age so he isn't having all that great developmental pains.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2013 19:09:40 GMT -5
Using "dumped" to describe Iglesias transaction may be a little strong, but Peavy at time of trade was projected, and proved to be, a good 4th or 5th that the Red Sox wouldn't look to extend beyond 2014. Highly regarded prospects, especially young premium position players with multiple gold gloves in their future, ordinarily don't get moved at all, or draw a greater return than Peavy. I think the Sox pretty much cut bait with Iglesias and looked to sell high. Since when was Iglesias a highly regarded prospect? A few years ago, when he was hype? His value at this point last year was pretty damn low. He caught "fire" with a bunch of weak contact and Ben was able to flip him for a quality piece that helped the team down the stretch during a WS championship run. He has the same major questions about his bat that he's always had. It wouldn't be surprising if Detroit is looking for a SSS come July 31.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 16, 2013 19:12:04 GMT -5
Is Betts really that good of an athlete? I would've thought Bradley or even Margot would have been. Betts doesnt seem to have special speed and definitely isnt too strong. Seems like thats a little odd Straight from his page on this site: Have only watched him on TV twice, so that isn't much of a sample. He looked at ease at second base but there weren't any difficult chances while I was watching. He did steal 8 bases last year while only being caught twice. Read a piece recently that mentioned how there were fewer multiple-sports athletes these days. Most tend to focus on the one sport their best at, and they're encouraged to do so. Betts was good at a bunch of them. Haven't researched it, but it was probably something like basketball, football, and track. It does appear that he has is quite a good athlete. I too don't know the other two sports but his second best sport is as non-athletic as it gets: bowling.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2013 19:27:56 GMT -5
What an athlete is or being athletic, is difficult to define. So many variables. To me it has less to do with straight line speed, little to do with brute strength and more to do with fluidity of motion and balance.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 16, 2013 19:38:54 GMT -5
...Not meant as a quibble with your post but Mookie stole 38 bases vs. only 4 CS. Thanks. That was a straight misread.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 16, 2013 19:44:30 GMT -5
As far as the 'scouting' goes, go back and look at the Henry Owens thread, after the Parks evaluation, with the exception of the comments made by Onbase, virtually every "scouting" oriented comment pretty much said the same thing, that to progress he will need to add MPH to his fastball and that his mechanical flaws will make progression difficult. Show me a scouting report that is as optimistic as ericvan's saber view. That was James' initial point: Owens is controversial for both scouts and SABR folks. Some scouts like him a lot (the ones that talked to Speier), others didn't (Parks). Some stats people like him a lot (Eric), others don't (me). Eric's take certainly isn't SABR gospel (indeed, many of his viewpoints different significantly from the Fangraphs orthodoxy). This isn't scouts versus stats people-- this is noone quite knowing what to make of him. Yes but I was obviously referring to scouting prior to this summary. Generally the scouting was negatively oriented. From my perspective, being neither a scout nor a saber guy but having the ability to comprehend both, I was somewhat holding back on where I thought Owens ceiling and ranking should lie. For minor leaguers I tend to believe the scouts maybe 70-30 and for major league players the opposite. Had Chris Mellen made the same report as Parks, I would have been considerably more down on Owens but would have been surprised because I listen to a lot of games and the scouting didn't match the dominance in Lefler's words. I view Lefler and Antonellis on roughly the same par with Chris but they don't express things in the same manner and have different orientations.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Dec 16, 2013 19:57:33 GMT -5
...Not meant as a quibble with your post but Mookie stole 38 bases vs. only 4 CS. Thanks. That was a straight misread. LOL, you had part of it right ... that was his AZ Fall League stats 8-2. Seems like all three stops last year he had 2 CS.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 16, 2013 20:48:57 GMT -5
My biggest disappointment. I had hoped that the stuff matched the numbers but had nothing to base that on except listening to a few games.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 16, 2013 20:52:09 GMT -5
My biggest disappointment. I had hoped that the stuff matched the numbers but had nothing to base that on except listening to a few games. ADD: And if that's my biggest disappointment, it's pretty safe to assume that I am very pleased. ADD2: Flagrant misuse of the quote function foul.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 16, 2013 20:56:14 GMT -5
I'm obviously not saying hes a bad athlete, just wondering if hes truly our BEST athlete It's easy to get caught up in the scouting reports and discussions. But Mookie played here last year in Lowell. First hand observation is usually better than reading reports.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 16, 2013 22:25:40 GMT -5
To multiple folks in this thread and in the forums generally: You realize that you can edit your posts, right?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 16, 2013 22:35:25 GMT -5
Here's the quote on Betts:
Further, on Denney, he's not in the top 20.
Re: Hudson, he noted that he didn't necessarily hit well so much as beat out a lot of ground balls.
And finally, keep in mind that this is Speier's list. We know that his stuff on WEEI.com was really high on Owens and Betts all year - it shouldn't be surprising how high those guys are ranked. I don't mean this in a bad way at all - Callis had his guys in the past too, like Lars and Ranaudo - but some of this stuff shouldn't be surprising. I also note the slight lean towards the guys who made the bigs this year in Webster and Workman, which might make sense as the guys he saw most.
All that said, I think there really isn't a clear 1-20 or anything. After Bogaerts, it's kind of a free-for-all based on what you value. Just go look back at the Staff Top 40 series we did and how much we varied, and given how much we talk and rely on each other's reports, we're inclined to agree more than someone we don't talk to.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 16, 2013 23:03:00 GMT -5
Callis had the opportunity to watch AAA and high A games in the Durham area and did so. I've watched hundreds of minor league games. That doesn't make me a scout. Callis is an analyst/writer with a ton of contacts. That's pretty much true of the entire industry. It's in no way is it a negative. His words are the sum of the feelings of the contacts he has, most of whom are either scouts or else people that hire scouts.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Dec 16, 2013 23:50:01 GMT -5
I think Callis is as good as it gets though. I would take his top 10 anytime as one of the best ones out there. If this is Speier's, and I certainly respect his take on things, I think I would still prefer the Callis approach, unless it is now "let's farm it out to local beat writers".
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Dec 16, 2013 23:59:38 GMT -5
I wonder if anyone will ever project Workman as a top 5 guy in the system. He may well be slotted in our starting 5 next year. At what point does he get real street cred? Maybe his stuff is not exciting but the guy looks durable as heck and he throws strikes. He's got a cutter now doesn't he. It seems like that pitch can accomplish a lot in itself for many players and the guy is built like a tank. If I were a KC or some other team I would be trying hard to land this guy. I think he would be a consistent, innings eating workhorse, who might actually make it as a #3 just by changing speeds and locating. I'd take him over Webster right now. Their stuff is not even close to comparable but their ability to change speeds and locate isn't comparable either.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 17, 2013 5:20:51 GMT -5
Callis had the opportunity to watch AAA and high A games in the Durham area and did so. I've watched hundreds of minor league games. That doesn't make me a scout. Callis is an analyst/writer with a ton of contacts. That's pretty much true of the entire industry. It's in no way is it a negative. His words are the sum of the feelings of the contacts he has, most of whom are either scouts or else people that hire scouts. Additionally, Callis lives in Chicago.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 17, 2013 5:30:51 GMT -5
I think Callis is as good as it gets though. I would take his top 10 anytime as one of the best ones out there. If this is Speier's, and I certainly respect his take on things, I think I would still prefer the Callis approach, unless it is now "let's farm it out to local beat writers". You should listen to the FREE BA podcasts. There was a very heartfelt one with John Manuel and Jim Callis when Jim officially left BA. He specifically mentioned that Alex was someone whom they had felt could take over the Red Sox lists for years, but Jim is a Red Sox fan and didn't want to let go of their system. Of note: they always review the top 10 lists and usually explain their ranking methodology.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Dec 17, 2013 9:11:50 GMT -5
Alex Speier: Figured it was worth talking about Devers in the context of both of these questions -- Devers has as much offensive upside as anyone in the Red Sox system save, perhaps, for Bogaerts. He absolutely dazzled anyone who saw him in instructional league. The only thing holding back his ranking is the fact that he's never played an official pro game and, for goodness sakes, he's 16, but after Bogaerts, Devers is the likeliest guy in the Sox system to emerge as a middle-of-the-order hitter.
This is kinda exciting. Coincidence that the new International Scouting department has Margot at 14, Rijo at 20 and Devers probably underrated at 25.
|
|
|